THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2555 of 2000 Date:05.12.2009 Between: Sabita Prasanna Kumar …Appellant And The Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2555 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order, dated 24.04.1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in M.O.P.No.31 of 1992 aggrieved by the finding of the learned Tribunal holding that the appellant who is the father of the deceased by name Sabbithi Ajay Kumar is not dependant on him. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company. 3. O.P.No.31 of 1992 is filed by the father of the deceased aged 19 years as on the date of his death. Whereas, O.P.No.65 of 1992 was filed by the mother and married sister of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of his death in a motor accident which occurred on 02.09.1991. The learned Tribunal passed a common award in both the O.Ps. by dismissing OP No.31 of 1992 in toto and partly allowing OP No.65 of 1992 and granting compensation of Rs.30,000/-. In both the O.Ps., the Tribunal gave a categorical finding that the father of the deceased who was living elsewhere by severing his connections with the family and the sister being married sister living with her husband, are not entitled for compensation on account of the death of the deceased inasmuch as they are not the dependant and the mother being the dependant alone is entitled for the entire compensation awarded in OP No.65 of 1992. 4. There is no challenge to the quantum of compensation or any other finding including the one relating to contributory negligence arrived at by the Tribunal. 5. The only finding of the Tribunal that was put to challenge in this appeal is the entitlement of the appellant who is the father of the deceased to claim compensation. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- in lump sum and no separate compensation was awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’. It is true that the father is also legal representative of the deceased. But, it is not obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to grant compensation to each and every surviving legal heir. The Tribunal has it’s discretion to exempt any of the legal heirs from entitlement to compensation on the ground that he was not depending on the earnings of the deceased. Therefore, in the instant case, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant herein who is the father of the deceased is not entitled for compensation for the reasons mentioned in the order passed by the learned Tribunal, cannot be assailed. The Tribunal is justified in granting entire compensation to the mother in O.P.No.65 of 1992 more particularly when no compensation is awarded under the head loss of estate. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I absolutely find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:05.12.2009 CCM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2555 of 2000 DATED: 05.12.2009