IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 503 of 2007 Ashish Kumar …Appellant Versus Sri Sundru Lal & others …Respondents Sri L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for appellant Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2 Sri Deepak Rawat, Advocate for respondent no. 5 Dated: November 10, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 7.9.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in M.A.C.T. No. 31/2005, Sundru Lal & others versus Praduman Singh Jhingwan & others. Brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that mother of claimant no. 3-Ashish and sister-in-law of claimants no. 1 & 2-Smt. Kamla Devi was employed as IV Class employee in Husbandry Department, Pauri after death of her husband-Late Pooran Lal and had gone to Gopeshwar for some official work. On 20.3.2005, when Smt. Kamla Devi (deceased) was coming Pauri from Gopeshwar through Bus No. U.A.11-0263, on the same day at 10.00 a.m. near Makunda the said Bus met with an accident, in which Kamla Devi died. The deceased had been receiving a sum of 2 Rs.6000/- as salary and her age was 35 years at the time of accident. The deceased used to give a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to claimants no. 1 and 2 for maintenance. The claimants have made party to the opposite parties no. 1 and 3 as owner and driver of vehicle respectively and opposite party no. 2 as insurance company. Opposite party no. 1 owner of vehicle in question filed written statement admitting the factum of accident. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that the driver of vehicle was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, rather the said accident had occurred due to technical reasons. It has also been stated that on the date of accident the said vehicle was comprehensively insured and all the papers of vehicle were valid. Therefore, owner of vehicle was not at all liable, rather liability to pay the compensation is of insurance company. Opposite party no. 2-insurance company has filed its written statement denying the all the contents of claim petition and pleaded that on the date of accident vehicle was not insured and driver of vehicle in question was not holding valid driving licence. It has also been pleaded that claimants were not dependent upon the deceased and also were not her legal representatives and claimants have no locus standi to file the claim petition. The papers relating to vehicle in question were not valid. Therefore, the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 Opposite party no. 3-driver of vehicle in question filed written statement admitting the factum of accident, but stated that accident did not take place due to his rash and negligence, rather it occurred due to technical reasons. Rest of the facts have been stated formally that vehicle was comprehensively insured; papers of vehicle were valid and on the date of accident he was the driver having valid driving licence. The claim petition filed against opposite party no. 3 deserves to be dismissed. The Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- in favour of claimants, against opposite party no. 2-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vide judgment and award dated 7.9.2007. The Tribunal further directed the insurance company to deposit the said amount of compensation with the Tribunal by 7th November, 2007, failing which, the claimants shall also be entitled to get compound interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of judgment till the date of payment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-claimant no. 3 has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for appellant, Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2, Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and perused the record. 4 Learned counsel for appellant has argued that appellant being sole legal representative and dependent of his deceased mother, is only entitled to the compensation awarded. He has thus submitted that respondents no. 1 and 2 being not legal representatives of deceased, are not entitled for compensation and learned Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding compensation to these respondents also. He has also submitted that amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is meager and it is liable to be enhanced by this Court. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant being the son and Class-I heir of the deceased-Smt. Kamla Devi, is entitled to receive the whole amount of awarded money and the Tribunal should not have awarded 25% each of the award to other claimants, who are in-laws of the deceased. Learned counsel for respondents-claimants has made rival contention by refuting the contention of learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that although the appellant is Class-I heir of the deceased, but the other claimants being the father and mother of husband of deceased, in whose place the deceased was given the job on compassionate grounds, are entitled to get some part of the compensation as they have no other means of earning their livelihood as they were totally dependent upon the earning of deceased’s husband. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and going through the finding recorded by the Tribunal 5 on the point, I find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, deceased-Smt. Kamla Devi, who was given compassionate appointment on the death of her husband and parents of deceased’s husband were totally dependent of earning of husband of deceased and after his death they were dependent upon deceased-Smt. Kamla Devi. Therefore, the claimants no. 1 and 2/in-laws of deceased being the part of family of the deceased have rightly been awarded 25% each of the compensation. I do not find any illegality in the finding arrived at by the Tribunal by awarding the compensation in favour of claimants no. 1 and 2/in-laws of deceased. As far as amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal has adopted absolutely right method for calculating the same and the same does not require any interference. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 7.9.2007 passed by Tribunal is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6