1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.368/1999 (Smt. Roopi Devi Vs. Kishan Lal and ors.) Date of Judgment : 04-09-2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Sandeep Mathur, for the appellants. Mr.R.S.Rathore for Mr.K.N.Tiwari, for respondents. Mr.Anirudh Singh for Mr.Virendra Agrawal, for respondent-Ins.Company. This appeal has been preferred by Smt.Roopi Devi, mother of deceased Rajendra Gupta for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambharlake Distt. Jaipur vide judgment dated 1.6.1998 whereby a sum of Rs.7,41,000/- was awarded to the dependents of the deceased and out of which the present appellant was ordered to be paid Rs.50,000/- in apportionment of amount of award. 2. The challenge in the appeal pertains to the apportionment of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased Rajendra Gupta died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and a death claim bearing No.93/94 2 was filed by the appellant, who is mother of the deceased along with widow and two minor children of the deceased. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to award adequate compensation as the learned Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency on the basis of three years' Income Tax Return while the last return before the death should have been taken into consideration. Further argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant who is mother of the deceased, has been directed to be paid Rs.50,000/- out of total awarded amount of Rs.7,41,000/- while the appellant mother was wholly dependent on deceased and has got no other source of livelihood and, as such, deserves to be given more amount by way of apportionment. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. It has further been argued that though other claimants have not filed 3 appeal for enhancement but in case the amount is enhanced they should be also allowed to participate in the disbursement. 5. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that initially the claim petition no.93/1994 was filed by the widow of the deceased and her to children along with mother who is appellant before this court and they had no conflicting interest between them. During the inquiry, the present appellant, who is mother of the deceased also did not appear as witness in the court with the contention that she was solely dependent of the deceased and she had conflicting interest with the widow and that she has to be apportioned higher amount out of the amount to be awarded in the matter. 6. The present appeal has been filed by the mother only, and widow & children have not filed any appeal for enhancement and thus does not represent the actual need of enhancement. Thus the conclusion in arriving the amount awarded in the matter calls for no interference. Therefore, the amount 4 directed to be paid to the appellant, mother of the deceased by way of apportionment by the learned Tribunal calls for no interference. 7. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The record of the case be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Srawat/- item no.H-45