Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1951 (RAJ)

Chhitariya Lal v. Dharamveer

2011-09-12

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Appellant Chhitariya Lal has approached this court by filing this appeal against the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MAC Case No.341/2008, whereby the Tribunal has declined to grant him compensation for accidental death of his wife Rambeti Kamal. 2. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that learned Tribunal has given a categorical finding that deceased Rambeti Kamal was legally wedded wife of appellant and, therefore, it erred in law in not granting compensation to the appellant. The impugned award thus suffers from inherent contradictions. Learned counsel submitted that Deepak @ Chirag son of deceased Rambeti Kamal, to whom the entire compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, was appellant's son but he has filed the claim petition through his maternal grandfather and grandmother (the father and mother of deceased Rambeti Kamal) and the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation in favour of Deepak @ Chirag with a rider that the amount shall be invested in the FDR which shall be renewed every three years and the same shall be paid to Deepak @ Chirag on his attaining majority. Learned counsel submits that the entire amount may be taken by the maternal grandfather and grandmother of Deepak @ Chirag. The finding of the learned Tribunal that Deepak @ Chirag was an illegitimate child of deceased Phool Singh, who died in the same accident, is baseless. It was a matter of chance that deceased Phool Singh and Rambeti Kamal were serving at Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, respectively as Junior Engineer and Teacher Gr.III, and while travelling together they met with the accident and died. Simply, on the basis of these facts, the learned Tribunal could not have drawn an inference that they were having illicit relations and Deepak @ Chirag was illegitimate child of both of them. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that findings on all issues No.1 to 4 have been recorded in favour of the appellant but, while deciding the issue relating to relief, the learned Tribunal on page 8 and 9 of the judgment has erred in law in holding that the appellant would not be entitled to receive any share in the compensation. This finding was recorded despite the fact that the voter-list and voter ID card of the deceased Rambeti Kamal were produced on record as Exhibit A-4, A-5 and A-29, respectively, to show that appellant was described as her husband in all the documents and it was also proved from the statement of appellant, apart from the statement of the father of the appellant, who had appeared in evidence as AW-4 and AW-5. The finding of the Tribunal, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be awarded part of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the evidence has come on record that Rambeti Kamal stayed with Phool Singh only between 1993 and 1998 and not thereafter. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award I find that the Tribunal has given a finding that the deceased had been living away from the appellant for a very long time inasmuch the Tribunal has also found in evidence that Deepak @ Chirag who at the relevant time, was 11 years of age, was born from the union of the deceased Phool Singh and Rambeti Kamal. Despite being the fact that Deepak @ Chirag was held to be an illegitimate child of two, he was awarded 1/6th of the compensation out of the compensation which became payable on account of accidental death of Phool Singh Yadav. When the appellant had deserted his wife or his wife Rambeti Kamal had deserted him and started living with Phool Singh and had been living with him for more than a decade, which is evident from the fact that the age of their illegitimate child Deepak @ Chirag was 11 years, at the time of accident, cannot be accepted that in spite of her husband of originally would be considered as dependent. In any case, the entire compensation has gone to right hands i.e. the child of he deceased. The appellant, who had left Rambeti Kamal or vice-versa, cannot now come forward to claim compensation. The argument that deceased Rambeti Kamal lived with Phool Singh Yadav from 1993 and 1998 and not thereafter, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that accidental death of both of them took place on 17.3.2007 and therefore starting from 1993 also she had continued to reside with him for 14 years. 5. The argument that deceased Rambeti Kamal lived with Phool Singh Yadav from 1993 and 1998 and not thereafter, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that accidental death of both of them took place on 17.3.2007 and therefore starting from 1993 also she had continued to reside with him for 14 years. 5. I find no good reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal is dismissed.