IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal From Order No. 1282 of 2001 (Old No. 496/98) Sacchi Ram Pardeshi S/o Late Sri Badami ram R/o Ghanshyam Gosain Bhawan Tilot, P.O. Uttarkashi District Uttarkashi ... Appellant Vs 1. Ravindra Singh Bist S/o Sri Jagdish Singh Bist R/o 4/5 Pushkar Marg, Rishikesh 2. United Insurance Company through Divisional Manager Kailash Gate, Kuni-ki-Reti District Tehri Garhwal 3. Sri Girdhari Singh Bhandari S/o not known R/o Village Kanda Patti Dharmandal District Tehri Garhwal 4. Smt. Sureshi Devi W/o Sri Sacchi Ram Pradeshi R/o 67 Kaleshwar Mandir Marg, P.O. Jhusiara District Uttarkashi ... Respondents Sri Lokendra Dobhal, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 11.03.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri Garhwal in M.A.C. No. 64 of 4994 whereby the Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 1,23,600/- in favour of respondent No. 4 and further directed on the basis of the material available on record that the appellant – Sacchi Ram is not entitled to get any compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.08.1993 at about 08:15 p.m. the deceased – Prasant Kumar was coming from Chamma to Uttarkashi in truck No. UGY/8829 (D.C.M. Toyota), the said truck met with an accident near Gadugad on Tehri – Uttarkashi Motor Road. The truck was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner. At the time of the accident, the deceased was the eldest son of the claimant and working in a mutton shop of Sri Jabbar Khan at Joshiyara, Uttarkashi. The deceased was an employee of one Jabbar Khan and was traveling in the vehicle with his employer in pursuance of a contract of employment and was going from Chamma to Uttarkashi. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 19 years and used to earn Rs. 950/- per month as salary. Therefore, the claimant filed claim petition for Rs. 4,20,000/- as compensation. 3. Sri Ravindra Singh Bist (owner of the vehicle) has filed his written statement as paper No. 11 kha denying all the allegations of the claim petition, admitting the factum of accident. He has admitted this fact that Sri Girdhari Singh Bhandari was driving the said truck on the date of accident. It has further pleaded that the truck was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident, hence, the liability of the payment of compensation, if any, shall be on the Insurance Company. It has further alleged that the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation from him and the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. United India Insurance Company has also filed its written statement as paper No. 13 kha denying all the allegations of the claim petition and stating therein that the deceased was not under the employment of Sri Jabhar Khan, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment. It has further pleaded that the liability for making payment of compensation is of Jasbbar Khan but he was not impleaded as party in the case. It has further alleged that the claim petition was also time barred and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. Sri Girdhari Singh Bhandari – driver of the vehicle in question has not contested the claim petition, therefore, the case against him proceeded ex-parte. 6. Sri Sachi Ram is the husband of the claimant and present appellant was impleaded in the claim petition vide order dated 24.09.1997. He has also filed a written statement claiming Rs. 5,60,000/- as compensation against the death of his son. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question belonging to respondent No. 1 by its driver? If so, its effect? 2. To what compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled? 3. Relief, if any? 8. In support of the claim petition, the statement of Smt. Sureshi Devi as P.W. 1 and Sri Pawan Kumar as P.W. 2 were recorded. From the side of the opposite parties, the statement of Sri Vivek Arora D.W. 1 and Sri Sachi Ram as D.W. 2 were recorded. Sri Vivek Arora has also proved the report of the office of R.T.O., Dehradun regarding the verification of the driving licence, which was found in the name of Gurdayal Singh and not in the name of Giridhari Singh Bhandari. 9. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record awarded a sum of Rs. 1,23,600/- against the respondents and the claim of the Sacchi Ram was rejected vide order dated 11.03.1998. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this petition before this Court. 11. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this petition only on one point. He has contended that both Smt. Sureshi Devi as well as appellant – Sacchi Ram Pardesh are the mother and father of the deceased and have equal right over the award of compensation, therefore, the Tribunal has committed illegality while awarding the award only in favour of Smt. Sureshi Devi. He has further submitted that the appellant is the father of the deceased, therefore, he has equal right over the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. According to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, the only question left with regard to the entitlement of compensation. In order to resolve this controversy, I have gone through the entire record. Perusal of the statement of Smt. Sureshi Devi, it reveals that her son used to give money to her for the maintenance of the family. She has further stated that her husband is doing service in Health Department and he was under suspension during that period. The statement made by Smt. Sureshi Devi has not been denied by Sri Sacchi Ram. He has stated that there were five children from Smt. Sureshi Devi and out of them the present son Prashant Kumar has died in the accident. He has further submitted that his relations with Sureshi Devi are not good and she is residing separately along with the children. Thus, the maintenance of the children was on the shoulders of Smt. Sureshi Devi. Therefore, it has been proved that the appellant further is in service and he was not dependent upon the deceased. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal concerned. The appellant – Sacchi Ram himself admitted this fact that he was residing separately from Smt. Sureshi Devi. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly decreed the award of Rs. 1,23,600/- in favour of Smt. Sureshi Devi. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal after going through the entire record awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,23,600/- in favour of Smt. Sureshi Devi, which is perfectly justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 01.04.2008 ASWAL