JAMNABEN VELJIBHAI PATEL Vs. ASIM SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Y.J. Patel for the petitioner states that the widow of the deceased - Vinod Veljibhai Patel had not moved the Tribunal for any compensation in M.A.C.P. No.266 of 2004. However, the Tribunal had ordered for the money to be disbursed between applicant No.2 as the mother of deceased and to the widow of deceased. Mr. Patel submits that hence the widow had moved the Tribunal for disbursing 30% share but the application came to be rejected merely on the ground that there was no cogent evidence to prove that Rinaben and Geetaben are the same person. Mr. Patel submits that affidavit was produced before the Tribunal that both are one and the same person. Mr. Patel states that the Tribunal in the judgment itself has reflected the fact of re- marriage of widow of deceased and by the affidavit, she had disclosed that after the marriage, her name was changed from Rinaben to Geetaben and therefore, she was known as Geetaben Kishorbhai Rudani. Mr. Patel states that the present application is filed by the mother- in-law, who has affirmed this fact and has made prayer to grant money to her widow, daughter in law.

(2.) Mr. Patel, referring to the grounds raised and supported by the affidavit of the mother-in-law, submits that the mother-in-law has also supported the fact that she had been re-named by her in-laws.

(3.) A copy of the Aadhar Car of "Rudani Gitaben Kishorkumar Patel" is produced on record. Affidavit is also sworn by her to the effect that after her marriage, she is known as Gitaben while her mother-in-law has supported the fact that earlier she was known as Reenaben and after the death of her son, she had re- married to Rudani Kishorkumar Patel and hence, is known as Gitaben Kishorkumar Patel.