^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram :Hon?ble Shrl T.P.Sharma and Hou'ble SIuri R. L. Jhanwar, JJ. APPBLLANTS Clsiimsints M. A. (Cl No.791/2009 1 Alakh Ram Thakur s/o Lt. Jivrakhaa Thakur, aged about 60 years 2 Rainbagas Thakur s/o Alakh Rain Thakur aged about 19 years, Both R/o Village Pauwara, Tah. Durg District Durg (CG) Versus 1, Md. AshrafKhan, S/o Asgar Khan age about 20 years 2. Asgar Khan s/o Usiaava Khaa, age about 60 years Bofh R/o Camp- 1, Arjun Nagar Near Rain Krina Store, Puxnp House, Chawani, Bhilai, Tah 8& Distnct Durg (CG) 3. The Uuited India Insuraace Co. Ltd., Through Braach Manager, Branch Office Tara Comiplex, G.E, Road, Bhilai Tah & District Durg Appearatice: Shri C,K, Sahu, counsel for the appeUaats. None for respondent No. 2. Shri Dashrafh Gupta, counsel fbr respondent No.3, RESPONDBNTS (Driver) {Owner) (Insurer) QRALQRDER (12.07.2010) Per T.P.Sharma, J. 1. By fhis appeal, the appeUaat has challenged fhe legaJity aad propriety of ffae award dated 25.2.2009, passed by 1 the 9th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Diirg (in short 'the Tribimal') in Claim Case No. 1/2008, whereby flie learaed Clamis Tribunal by allowmg tiie claixn ofdaughter of deceased- Dashoda Bai ie. Pratuna Netam in claiin case No, 8/2008 has disnussed fhe claim of ftie present appeUaats, The award is challenged on the ground fhat by disnussing fhe claim of the appellaats, Tribunal has comjnitted illegality. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are fhat Dashoda Bai aUeged wtfe of appeUant No, 1- Alakh Rain died on account ofiaotor accident on 9.9.2007. Prcsent appeUaats have fUed fhe claiai petition (claiin case No. 1/2008) on accomit of death of Dashoda Bai i.e. aUeged wife of appellaat No. 1 aad mofher of appeUaat No.2 aiid a separate claim petition ia clami case No. 8/2008 was filed by one Pratiina Netaai alleged daughter of Dashoda Bai. After aifording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learaed Additional Claiois Tribiuial while atlowing the claioi of Pratiiaa Netam upto fhie extent of Rs,50,000/- to fhe claioiant/daughter, disniissed fhe claun of present appeUants on ftie ground fhat botii fhe appellan.ts are not legal representatives offhe deceased-Dashoda Bai. We have heard Shri C,K. Sahu, learaed counsel for fhe appeUants aad Shri Dashrafh Gupta, learaed counsel for respondent No,3, perused fhe award iinpugned aad record of fhe court below, Leamed counsel for fhe appellaat vehemLenUy argued that alfhough appeUaat has admitted iti his evidence fhat he had left his first wife Dashoda Bai aad was residiag wifh second wtfe and ftiereafter witht fhe fhird wtfe, but ia. absence of any divorce, Dashoda Bai was continumg fhe " / ^-.^...-y ,2. relations wifh the appellaiit as his wite. On accoiutt of deafh of Dashoda Bai, Alakh Rain was tiie legal representative and defendant of Dashoda Bai aad he was entitied for coinpensation. 6. Ou fhe ofher haad, leam.ed counsel for respondent No,3 opposed fhe petition aad subinits that after affordiag opportunily of hearmg to the parties, Court below has rightly disniissed fh.e Claiia petition offhe appeUaats. 7, In order to appreciate fhe arguinents advaaced on behalf of fhe pardes, we examined Uie evidence ayailable on record. 8, In the present case, as per fhe evidence of bofh fhe parties, it is undisputed fhat aaother clamiaat i.e. Pratiina Netaai is a natural daughter of deceased Dashoda Bai. Appellaat No,2- Rambagas is the son of appellaat No. 1 Alakh Raai, but he is not tiie son of Dashoda Bai, As per evidence, about 25 years prior to the date of iacident, appellaat No.l- Alakh Ram has left Dashoda Bai aad she was residiag separately. Alakh Ram was not maiatainiag her. He was residing with Khem Bai and fhereafter with Keshari Bai aiid he is haviag 4 issues from Keshari Bai and one issue froni Kheni Bai Le. appeUaat No.2. This evidence is sufficient for drawiag aa iaference fhat appeUaat No.2 Rambagas is not a natural son of deceased Dashoda Bai. Even appeUaat No. 1 has not married to Dashoda Bai after birth of appeUaat No.2 inier alia appeUaat No.2- Rainbs^as bom after leaviag the house of appeUaat No, 1 by atleged Dashoda Bai, Thercfore, appeUant No,2 is not termed as a legal representative aad defeadant of aUeged Dashoda Bai inter alia her natural daughter Pratmia Netam is entiUed for conipensation upto sonie extent. "^'-•"---- '"•^L.-. ^ NI^SS§^| 9. After appreciating fhe evidence available on record, learaed Tribunal has also arrived to ttie fmdmg that appeUaat No, 1 was Uvuig separately firoin Dashoda Bai siace long tune and was Uvirig with his 2 wives Kheia Bai aad Keshad Bai. He was not dependent upon Dashoda Bai. The evidence adduces on behalf of fhe parties is sufGicient for disentitiLuig the appeUaats claiining compensation on account of deafh of Dashoda Bai ia preference or in paraUel to fhe claim of her natural heir daughter-Pratima Netam. Court below has righUy rcjected ftie claiin of fhe appeUants. 10. On close scrutmy, we do not find aay iUegality or impropriety ia fhe award passed by fhe Clahns Tribunal, warraiitmg iaterference by fhis Court. 11. The appeal beiag devoid of merits is Uable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- S^ R.L.Jhanwar TRSharma Jud8e Judge