INTHEH€)mBLEHIfiHS^UI^OR^MMA'!n^S^ :'.^:Al.Bll,AlgUR;.'s/.-: •,,:' •"^ i'M.A.fG^NO.^^ ::/2OTl8'.:::.; ' ::: AePEI-LANT Claimant t: RaiTjit Topp6, S/o Shri ^ TQP^RO agsd about 30 years, R/o RSEfiawa, P/S BagicMay Tah: Bagicha Distt.; Jaspyr (G.G.>.:;.:,:,;.:. •:;;.^^^ :', 1 \^ RESPONDENTS Owner 1. Tapeswar YaGlay S/6 Umasankar Yadav, Ageci aboyt 30 year, R/d Village, Kosaf'-a P/S & TaH. Sitapur Distt. Driver Suguja (C.G.) 2. Umasankar Yadav, S/c) Baimykund Ry'o Viltage Kosara," P/S & ^Tah. Sitapur DiStt. . .' '.'^.,;.'.. : 1 •:I.Suguja;CC.G.)'.^,1:: . .'•. :.::,.:: Present Addi'ess: Village Rokaaa Pat, P/s BagiGHa^Distt. Jaspur(C.G.) Father of diseased 3. Sohhnafli TirKi, S/o Sh ri jag ma R/o Vil'lag^ iamarbar, Buchidadi, P/s Bagieha Ja^Rur<C.G^''::;'. :.^,.:'- ^- :!:-&B s- APPEAL UNDER SEGTION 173 OETHEMQT^R VEHICLE ACT 1988 ^ ^oe>oof ^E^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A(C)No. 615/2008 Ranjit Toppo Versus RESPONDENTS Tapeshwar Yadav and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J. PRESENT:- Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Ku. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate, for the respondent No. 3, None for other respondents. ORAL ORDER (15-11-2010) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is claimant's appeal against fhe award dated 31-1- 2008 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur in Claim Case No. 4/2007. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that Shlibbo Bai (since deceased) was an Anganbadi worker. On 3-12-2004 she had gone to attend a meeting to village Bageecha and after attending the meeting was returning on a tractor bearing registration No. MP 27 B/5719 owned by respondent No. 1 and being driven by respondent no. 2. The said tractor turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver, as aresult ofwhich, said Shibbo Bai died on fhe spot. The husband and the father of the deceased filed two separate claim petitions bearing Claim Case No. 4/2007 and 17/2006 respectively for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198.8. 3. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, passed common award awarding Rs. 1,80,000/- and apportioned Rs. 90,000/- each between the husband and the father of the deceased. -y 7. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal has wrongly apportioned the amount of compensation m favour of the respondent Shobhanath Tirki i.e. father of the deceased as father of fhe deceased was not legal heir of the deceased and was not entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also not dependent. I have perused the award impugned and the record of the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant is husband of the deceased but at that time, the deceased was residing with her father. Indisputably the father is an old person; certainly he was partially dependent upon his daughter at that time. Although in strict sense, the father was not legal representative of the deceased but as he was partially dependent upon the deceased at that time, leamed Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation in favour of both the husband as well as father of the deceased because fhe husband is also not solely dependent upon the deceased and the deceased was also not residing with him at that time. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has done substantial justice in apportioning the amount between the husband along with whom the deceased was not residing and the father along with whom "the deceased was residing. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award. 9. The appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwai Judge