TULA DEVI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by mother, father and brother of the deceased Binod Kumar Mahto @ Birendra Kumar Mahto against the judgment and award dated 5th September, 2005 passed by learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in connection with Claim Case No. 91 of 1993 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,72,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and the learned Tribunal has also indicated the manner in which the amount shall be apportioned between the claimants (wife of the deceased) and parents including brother. The facts behind the claim application is that Binod Kumar Mahto @ Birendra Kumar Mahto was travelling on Ambassador Car bearing registration No. WGI-92 with his friends on 30th January, 1993 and he was going from Kaitha to Ranchi. When the vehicle reached near Pal Nursing Home, Ramgarh, a truck bearing registration No. PB-10B 9530, being driven rashly and negligently, dashed to the ambassador car as a result the deceased and other occupants sustained injuries and died on the spot. It is disclosed that at the time of death deceased was aged about 21 years and he was a college student. Besides study, he was also providing tuition and his monthly income was about Rs. 1500-1600/- per month. Sarita Devi, wife of the deceased, filed an application for grant of compensation against the death of her husband Binod Kumar Mahto @ Birendra Kumar Mahto which occurred in the road accident. The parents of the deceased, younger brother and sister were made party to the claim application. After service of notice the opposite party-United India Insurance Company Ltd. appeared and filed their show cause but the owner and driver of the vehicle did not appear and the trial Court proceeded against them ex-parte.

(2.) On 15.02.2000 issues were framed and after admitting evidence and documents on record the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the dependents of deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/- and it was directed to be distributed in the manner indicated in the impugned judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the claimant Mostt. Sarita Devi, who has been made opposite party/respondent No. 2 in this appeal, got herself re-married on 07.07.2000 and she, now ceases to be the widow of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has rightly directed the respondent-insurance company to pay Rs. 25,000/- to her. Furthermore, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the annual income of the deceased and committed error by not granting interest on the amount awarded from the date of application.