AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—Nobody is present for the Petitioner.
This writ petition filed way back on 24.11.2010 is pending for admission and has been adjourned several times. It is appears that the Petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting this writ petition any further.
Even on merits, there appears No. reason to entertain this writ petition. The Petitioner is said to be the wife of the vehicular accident victim Rajesh. The Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are said to be the parents of said victim Rajesh. In the claim for compensation as made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadara, the Petitioner has been joined as the non-applicant No. 4. The learned Tribunal, while making directions for payment of first mentioned compensation, has directed Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the Insurer and to be disbursed equally amongst the Petitioner and the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
The Petitioner has submitted in this writ petition that the Respondent No. 5 has other sources of income in a Grocery Shop and further, that the said Respondent has agricultural income too, whereas the Petitioner has No. source of income. It is submitted that 70% amount of No. fault liability award ought to have been allowed to the Petitioner.
The victim was said to be of 22 years of age and was son of the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. In the totality of the circumstances, so far the distribution of amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards No. fault liability is concerned, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing equal distribution of the amount amongst the Petitioner and the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition stands dismissed.