Gulsher Khan-2681

18.04.2024
Hears V.C. Agrawal Learned Counsel for the Appellant that is horient Insurance Company Shri
M.S. Kotwal learned counsel new India Insurance Company and has passed away. Thus on the
principal of law argument were advanced by Shri V.C. Agrawal learned counsel. Learned counsel
for opposite party here also.
This Bench of appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has arisen from the
judgement/award referred by the tribunal in five the separate vide by Ram Sawaroop Sahu
petitioner commission exclusively on the accidental death of this older brother and wife of three
miner children 10.02.1992. While the parent alive filed by same claimened out of the sole
accident of being decided by the tribuanl gave rise to for other that is F.A.F.O 266 of 1993 to
253,1993 to 274,1993 and 248,1993 but aim were the accordingly made.
The family member who die the member punish Bona Prasad Sahu survive. There may be Raja
Rani children Kumari aged about 5 years Kumari aged frame about 3 years and master Pankaj
aged 8 months. The legal areas behind the decease family members of the parent Bona Prasad
Sahu. Ram Prasad Sahu younger brother other public demand conclusive before motor accident
claim tribunal and Sitapur. Wherein younger claimand himself to be sole demand for payment of
composition.
It appears that an objective was against the exclusively entitlement of composition by claim Ram
Sawaroop Sahu claim to be implement claim petitioner 109 of 1992. The tribunal hereafter side.
Thereafter proceed on adjudication of claim petition defendant relevant to note that the defendant
no. 57 and para 15 and 16 of the written statement filed in the claim petitioner relating of the
death of Bhola Prasad Sahu under that the decide was the first son of the respondent. The
respondent no. 5 is a real mother of the decease and the respondent no. 6 is the father of the
decease. Being here the airs legal representative and defendant of the decease respondent re-
entitled to get an amount of composition.
The way decease was living the separate Hakwana was has independent business there. The
claim their younger was also living with the decease since his childhood and the claimed
remained and actual case and custody of decease. The claim was actually defendant of the
decease.
It is clear from the pots every mental that the parent of the decease grand parent of the miner
children and grant. But at the same time they have also pointed out that Ram Sawaroop Sahu
residing along way Bona Prasad Sahu as family member. There is no admission that Ram
Sawaroop Rahu upon his older brother Bhola Prasad Sahu. The hold after filing written
statement before tribunal. The parent did not appear before tribunal in evidence. The parent
never reincious in favour of the Ram Sawarop Sahu of inspectio has claim himself to be sole
claimed to petitioner.
The learned counsel tribunal having record to the evidence of record but adjudicated upon
representative and claim the separate 25. The amount of composition at Rs.3,28,000 in the case
of death Bhola Prasad Sahu out of which and amount of 30,000 allowed of the mother and father
where as amount of Rs.2,68,000 was awarded infavour younger brother wh hav instituted
mentioning to be sole depended. In the claim petitioner arising out of death Raja Rani and total
amount Rs. 126,00,000 was exclusive allowed in favour Ram Sawaroop Sahu. In so far as miner
children are concerned. The learned counsel tribunal in each of the claim arising of the death Shri
miner children awarded Rs.30,000 in each claim exclusively in favour of Ram Sawaroop Sahu
uncle.
Thus or the five claimed here allowed at point of time 5/2 category of the five decease members
way alive and set up was claimed. The claim petitioner were allowed the nearly on the basis on
admission of there may be particular Sundary Devi Sundar narayan Sahu that the decese Bhola
Prasad Sahu.