AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nawab Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by Amar Singh father of Tej Pal (deceased) against the judgment-cum-Award dated March 4th, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Kurukshetra. On April 21st, 2012 Tej Pal along with his mother Raj Kumari alias Paro (deceased) met with an accident on account of negligent driving of motor cycle No. HR-07-H-5721 by Amarjit Singh. FIR No. 61 u/s 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Ladwa against the driver of the motor cycle.
Amar Singh filed two claim applications bearing No. 68 and 69 of 2012 before the Tribunal. Claim application No. 68 of 2012 was filed by him along with wife and 6 months old daughter of Tej Pal seeking compensation on account of death of Tej Pal.
Claim application No. 69 of 2012 was filed on account of death of his wife.
In claim application No. 68, the Tribunal, vide impugned Award, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,50,128/- to the wife and child of Tej Pal along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization but declined to grant compensation to the appellant.
In claim application No. 69, the appellant was awarded compensation of Rs. 2,98,036/- along with the same rate of interest as was awarded in claim application No. 68.
The solitary submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant being the father of the deceased should also have been awarded compensation on account of death of his son Tej Pal.
The appellant is aged 55 years. There is no evidence on record to show that he was dependent upon the income of Tej Pal. Otherwise too, Ritu Rani wife of the deceased was 23 years old at the time of death of her husband. The deceased left behind a six months old daughter. Both of them are to bear the brunt of tragedy more than anybody else. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the appellant was awarded compensation on account of death of his wife in the same accident. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in not awarding compensation to the father. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.