wows?
This is appeal by the Corporation questioning jib:
judgment and award in we No.6953/2003 dated ”
2. The married daughters of the 1
claim petition inter-alia claiming “r’1T’h«’r’:’ _
considering the age of the like A’ ”
awarded compensation of Rs.2.22.0O0}L¥’;«.1
3. The only contention counsel for
the appellant is she is not
entitled to claim tho of dependency’.
as she ” deceased. In such
dmumstanoos, the as this Court have mkcn
a View that, can claim compensation
utodor <I4–0V of l\& otor Vehicles Act and she is not
more than the same. He relied on
the clecisi-¢;;;.%o1?'i1;g§_ Court reported in AIR 2007 so 1474 in
T"o1:%AA£1§e n1attAcf'—of SMXBMANJURI BERA Vs. GRIENTAL INSURANCE
' L'zI'B.: and submitted that, in similar circumstances.
V has granted compensation under Section 140 of
V Vehicles Act.
V ” ~ 4. This Court has follcrwed the said decision in a judgment
fiopoxtcd in 2008(2) ‘PAC 539 (Kant) in the matter of CHAMAN
SAB Vs. PARAPPA 85 OTHERS.
the the same, they are liable to be repay
.Aj£1:a a» mag.’
V ‘ S ‘*
5. It is not in dispute that the claimants are married
daughters and are with the husband and in such circnmstagxcgs
it cannot be said that. the manied daughters were dependiitfi
the deceased and not on the husband. Even _
cannot be held that, they are depcndenpsg. _– .4
matter is also not seriously disputed by €23:-: 7-I:
the claimants. As such. if they are n6t’c1g:pe1idc1it.n, %
entitled for compensation under ‘the -pf of
the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Accoxdingly; is é::fiaéi1t’y…V.fAaflmmd. The
clanna1m’ are en1:i’t41’§a»’:f.””fs’g3zi”” ‘t;f”‘Rs.S0,000/~ With’
izntcrest on _ ovf’:f:’§V’flo:”‘fa:i:1t and not ‘as a
dependents’. T5 is mod1fied’ .
If the; _ eimicd for only Rs.50,00€)/- of
” is any aInotmtwfih’ drawn by
Sd/-k
Judge