SAIRA BANO Vs. BITTHAL BALU GODEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to the present petition are that one Sheikh Saleem died in a road accident on 5-3-2004 while he was travelling in a truck along with the cleaner. Petitioner being widow of the deceased submitted Claim Case No. 8/2004 before the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni. Respondent no. 4 was mother of the deceased and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were respectively sister and brother of the deceased. They, too, submitted Claim Case No. 14/2004 for compensation. Both the cases were pending before the First Additional Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni. They were taken up in Lok Adalat wherein the petitioner gave her consent for compromise at a sum of Rs. 5 lacs. The Lok adalat passed its decision directing the respondent No. 2 to pay sum of Rs. 5 lacs towards compensation within a period of three months from the date of award. It has been further mentioned in the award that the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 6 would be entitled to equal share in the amount of compensation.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the petitioner vide application dated 6-8-2005 stated before the learned Claims Tribunal that she had accepted the amount of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for herself and the same could not have been shared in equal proportion with respondent No. 4 to 6. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 4 is aged 55 years, whereas, the petitioner is a widow, aged 27 years. She does not intend to get remarried. As regards respondent No. 5, it has been stated that she would be married in near future and, likewise, respondent no. 6 being the major son of deceased, is doing his own job. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted that the apportionment of the compensation in equal shares would not be proper and the same was never consented to by her before lok Adalat. Accordingly, a prayer was made for making division of amount of compensation in a proper manner.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 4 to 6 refuted the allegations of the petitioner. It has been specifically pleaded in Paragraph 8 of the reply that the Life Insurance corporation Branch, Seoni, made payment of the insurance amount to the respondent No. 4 being nominee and out of the same, half of the amount has been paid to the petitioner. It has been further stated that the petitioner would be remarrying in near future which is not prohibited under Muslim Law.