SAMIRULNISSA GULAMALI KHAN Vs. ARNAVAS JAL MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard advocate appearing for the appellants. The appellants are the original claimants in a claim under sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . The first appellant is the widow of the victim of the accident and 2nd to 7th appellants are the children. It is stated that now the 2nd and 3rd appellants have attained majority but 4th to 7th appellants are still minors.

(2.) There was a compromise in the claim petition. The appellants accepted the total amount of Rs.03,50,000.00 by way of settlement inclusive of amount payable under the No Fault Liability. The learned Member of the Tribunal directed that a sum of Rs.50,000.00 shall be paid to the first appellant and a sum of Rs.15,000.00 each shall be invested in the names of 2nd to 7th appellants. The balance amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of five years in the name of the first appellant with permission to the first appellant to withdraw interest.

(3.) The grievance of Shri Kotak, learned counsel for the appellants is that this is a case where even the amount payable under sec. 140 of the said Act of 1988 was not paid and considering the borrowings made by the first appellant it is impossible for the first appellant to maintain the minor children as she has been permitted to withdraw only a sum of Rs.50,000.00. His submission is that the invested amount in the name of the first appellant will fetch a very meagre interest. He, therefore, submitted that the award needs to be modified. He placed reliance on order dated 07th November, 2006 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2649 of 2006 as well as a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pavitra Shivling Doifode and others V/s. Nathuram K. Maral and another, 1989 0 ACJ 184.