HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1905 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the 2nd petitioner in O.P.No.332 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, questioning the award of the Tribunal in not apportioning any amount of compensation. 2. The appellant herein along with her brother filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- consequent on the death of their father in a motor accident. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record granted compensation of Rs.84,500/- and the liability was fixed on the Insurance Company also. There is no appeal filed by the insurance company. The appellant herein claims that the lower Tribunal has dismissed the claim against the appellant without any basis though she was unmarried. 3. As can be seen from the award of the lower Tribunal, the application was filed by the appellant along with her brother and her age was shown as 19 years and claiming to be unmarried. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW.2, who was another daughter of the deceased and is said to have been married, she claims that she was not dependant on the deceased. Taking that evidence into consideration, the apportionment of compensation to the appellant herein was not granted and the petition was dismissed against the appellant herein. Evidently, in determination of the compensation consequent on the death of the parent does not the dependency alone that has to be taken into consideration and the loss of love and affection have also to be taken into consideration. The lower Tribunal recorded the evidence of PW.2, whose name is shown as Shanthamma. In issue No.1, it was mentioned as the said Shanthamma is the 2nd petitioner. Evidently, the 2nd petitioner was not examined and the 2nd petitioner is said to have filed I.A.No.1556 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) at Jagtial, to the effect that by examining her another sister, the 1st petitioner has managed to get the compensation to him only. Therefore, it is quite clear from the material on record that there is said to be another sister and at any rate PW.2 is not the 2nd petitioner that was examined before the lower Tribunal. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and when evidently, the appellant is the daughter of the deceased, the refusal to apportion any part of the compensation to the appellant herein is not legal and accordingly, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is apportioned to the petitioner from out of the compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal and the appellant/2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:07.09.2011 INL