LALZUALA RALTE Vs. RAJU & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Joseph Lalchhuanliana Ralte, aged 25 years, employed with a private company described as EXL Service. Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon, died on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident involving truck bearing registration No. HR -26 -GA -0900 (the offending vehicle) which was concededly insured against third party risk with the third respondent herein for the relevant period. At the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR -51G -6800 (the motorcycle) with a friend named Albert Lallawmpuia and also suffered injuries. Two claim petitions under Ss. 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) came to be preferred for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), one on behalf of Albert Lallawmpuia and the other by the mother of deceased Joseph Lalchhuanliana Ralte (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). The claim petition presented by the mother of the deceased and the claim petition on behalf of the injured Joseph Lalchhuanliana Ralte were inquired into simultaneously. The claim petition arising out of death of Joseph alchhuanliana Ralte resulted in judgment dated 27.04.2010 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,71,000/ - was granted with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition (17.01.2009) till realisation.

(2.) The claimant (mother of the deceased) had impleaded the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as first and second respondents in addition to the insurance company as the third respondent. She had also impleaded Lalzuala Ralte (the appellant herein) as the fourth respondent, he being the father of the deceased. Noticeably, the claimant described herself as former wife of the appellant and, inter alia, testified on the strength of her own affidavit that her marriage with the appellant herein stood dissolved on account of divorce obtained under customary practices prevalent in the society of Mizoram (to which the parties belong), on 03.06.2002. The appellant, as the fourth respondent, had contested the claim of the mother (the fourth respondent in the appeal at hand), inter alia, on the ground that she had deserted him and the deceased and, thus, there was no loss of dependency for which she deserved to be compensated. Both the claimant mother and the respondent father testified during the inquiry to affirm their respective positions. The Tribunal, inter alia, held that the appellant had miserably failed to establish that he was dependent upon the deceased and thus concluded that he had practically not suffered any loss of love and affection, leave alone loss of dependency. Against these conclusions and observations the Tribunal apportioned Rs. 10,000/ - only in favour of the appellant, granting the entire remainder amount of compensation to the claimant mother.

(3.) The appeal at hand was brought by the father of the deceased for enhancement and mainly to raise the question of apportionment. By order dated 04.06.2010, it was directed that upon the insurance company depositing the awarded amount, only 50% would be paid to the claimant (the fourth respondent in the appeal) and the balance shall be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the Tribunal. The proceedings recorded thereafter show that the order has continued to be operative till date.