1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5038 OF 2009 1. Ranjana w/o Bansi Mali age 28 yrs, Occ. Household, R/o Devi Nimgaon, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 2. Savita d/o Bansi Mali, age 2 years, Occ. Nil. 3. Shital d/o Bansi Mali, age 1 year, Occ. Nil. Nos. 2 and 3 minors, under guardianship of their real mother Ranjana w/o Bansi Mali, Petitioner No.1. 4. Uttam s/o Rangnath Mali, age 50 years, Occ. Agril, R/o Devi Nimgaon, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 5. Kamalbai w/o Uttam Mali, age 45 years, Occ. Household R/o Devi Nimgaon, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. ...PETITIONERS. V E R S U S 1. The Manager, Maharashtra State Regional Transport Centre, Branch Depot, age Major, OCC. Manager, R/o Tq. Asti, Dist. Beed. 2. Arjun s/o Maruti Bhagwat, Deleted as per leave granted by age major, Occ. Bus Driver, Court dt. 01.02.2010. R/o Ashti, Dist. Beed. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri B.B.Yenge, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 – Deleted. 2 CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. In this petition, respondent No.2 is driver. The counsel for the petitioners seek leave to delete name of respondent No.2, driver at his risk. At the request and risk of petitioners, name of respondent No.2 stands deleted. Deletion to be carried out forthwith. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners points out operative part of the order passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed in M.A.C.P.No. 164/2006. Grievance raised, is not, on the point of quantum of compensation or apportionment among the legal heirs of deceased person. Specific grievance raised by the petitioners is that, one Mr. Bansi Mali died in a vehicular accident. Petitioner No.1 is widow, petitioners No.2 and 3 are minor daughters and petitioners No.4 and 5 are parents of the deceased. This relationship is also not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 5. From the order impugned, it appears that entire amount of compensation is directed to be invested with Nationalized Bank. It is true that part of the amount is also permitted to be withdrawn by respective petitioners but then nett 3 result is that entire amount is directed to be deposited with the Nationalized Bank. 6. I have perused order with every detail. Award of compensation passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed needs to be just in view of section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ordinarily, in case of death, wife of deceased, children and parents are surviving members of the family. Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while passing order pertaining to apportionment needs to take into account facts, situation appearing in the case. In case of minor children, their nourishment, education is significant, which has to be taken care of by their mother, widow. Widow is also responsible for taking care of parents of deceased person, if they were dependent on the deceased. Thus, facts may differ from case to case but then learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal needs to take into account all these contingencies and pass appropriate order. However, entire amount of compensation is directed to be invested with the Bank for a specific period. Ground realities of human life, necessities of children, taking education and so on needs to be considered. In a given case, widow may not be able to take care of minor children and parents. The order passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shows that these aspects were absolutely not considered by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 7. In my view, this order needs to be quashed and set aside. Liberty in favour of present petitioners to file application before Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, even though M.A.C.P. No.164/2006 stands disposed off. If, such application is filed by the petitioners, learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed shall hear the respondent No.1 and pass appropriate order. 4 8. In this view of the matter, order impugned is quashed and set aside and petitioners are permitted to file appropriate application before Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed in M.A.C.P. No. 164/2006. On receipt of such application, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, after hearing the petitioners and respondent No.1, shall pass appropriate order and dispose of said application. 9. Rule is made absolute in above terms. There is no order as to costs. It is made clear that award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed is not quashed and set aside since it is not the appeal challenging the award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed in M.A.C.P.No. 164/2006. This order pertains only to the apportionment of amount of compensation in favour of the present petitioners. ( S. B. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE. ..... aaa/5038.09