Sri M.K. Goyal v. No. 1 Hon

to Smt. Shiv Dehi (cid:150) wife of the deceased (cid:150) Roop Singh who was the fathering-law of the appellant (cid:150) Smt. Rajwati. The Tribunal dismissed the claim of Rampal S/o Roop Singh and Smt. Rajwati W/o Sri Gopal. 3

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court.

Heard Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the substitution application filed by the appellant (cid:150) Rajwati during the course of the appeal before this Court. The substitution application shows that Shiv Dehi in whose favour the impugned award was passed, has died on

08.03.2006, therefore, none remained in the family of the Roop Singh who can said to be entitled for the amount of compensation expect the appellant, who is the pre deceased son of the deceased (cid:150) Roop Singh.

The impugned judgment and award also shows that Jashoda W/o Ram Dayal and Smt. Hira Devi W/o Umesh Chand who are the daughters of the deceased (cid:150) Roop Singh had already filed their written statement before the Tribunal stating therein that they do not claim any compensation on account of the death of Roop Singh in the motor accident.

The claim of the Ram Pal who is the major son of the deceased whose claim was dismissed by the Tribunal has not preferred any appeal before this Court. Now, the only surviving person who can be said to be entitled for the amount of compensation is Rajwati who is the wife of the pre-deceased son of the deceased (cid:150) Roop Singh. I therefore, do not find any hurdle, in case, if the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is paid to Smt. Rajwati. 4

The Tribunal has calculated the amount of compensation along with an interest in a right manner. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal also appears to be justified and I do not find any ground to interfere in the same.

For the reason stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified up to the extent that the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the appellant Smt. Rajwati along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. If, any amount has been withdrawn by Smt. Shiv Dehi, then the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the remaining amount.

06.11.2008 ASWAL (B.C. Kandpal, J.)