Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.)Through the instant appeal, the appellants cast a challenge, vis-à-vis, the award made by the MACT concerned, upon claim petition No. 14-NL/2 of 1998/07, decided on 29.8.2008, where through compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- became awarded, to, one Vinod Kumari Chandel, and to Tejasvita chandel, co-appellant No. 1, in the extant appeal, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, and, commencing, from the date of filing, of, petition, uptill final realizations, thereof, the amount. Moreover, costs, amounting, to, Rs. 10,000/- also became therethrough hence quantified, by, the learned Tribunal, and, also through the impugned award, the afore determined compensation amount, was directed, to became equally apportioned, amongst oneVinod Kumari Chandel, and, one Tejasvita, and, also a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, became awarded, as loss, of, consortium, to, one Vinod Kumari chandel. Since appellant No. 2, one Abhilasha Chandel, was, denied the relief, of, compensation, hence, in, the impugned award, and, hence both, the, appellants challenge, the, operative order, hence equally apportioning the apposite amount, of, compensation, amongst, Vinod Kumari, and, vis-à-vis, Ms.Tejasvita Chandel, rather through theirs' constituting thereagainst, the, extant appeal, before this Court , (a) wherethrough they strive, to, beget reversing, of, the afore made apposite apportionment, vis-à-vis, one Vinod Kumari Chandel, contrarily they strive, for, the compensation amount, being ordered, to, become equally apportioned, only amongst them.
(2.)Co-appellant Tejasvita Chandel, is, un- controvertedly born out, of, the wedlock, entered into, interse one Abhilasha Chandel, with deceased Ram Pratap chandel. Even though, a perusal, of, Ext. Px-5, exhibit whereof, is, a verdict rendered, upon, petition No. 9/2 of 1997, petition whereof became instituted, under Section 6, of, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, (a) rather unveils, vis-à-vis, therein a declaration becoming meted, vis-à-vis, one Abhilasha Chandel, not solemnizing any legal, and, valid marriage, with deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, (b) and, also unfolds qua one Vinod Kumari arrayed, as respondent therein, becoming, rather declared to be, the, legally married spouse, of, the afore deceased Ram Pratap Chandel. However, the petitioner therein, one Abhilasha Chandel, became therein declared to, become entitled to the custody, of, minor Tejasvita Chandel, who, as aforestated, was born, from, the loins, of, one Ram Pratap Chandel, and, from the womb, of, Abhilasha Chandel.
(3.)Dehors the afore relief, becoming pronounced upon, the, afore petition, the further factum, of, one Vinod Kumari Chandel, at the relevant time,inasmuch, as, hers' in contemporaneity, vis-à-vis, the institution, of, the afore petition, hence living, with the afore deceased, Ram Pratap Chandel, rather also makes visible upsurging(s), from averments, becoming borne in paragraphs 4 and 5, of, the afore apposite petition, (a) wherein, one Abhilasha Chandel, makes acquiescing averments, qua, the, afore deceased, rather, concealing from her, his prior marriage, with one Vinod Kumari Chandel, hence in contemporaneity, vis-à-vis, his entering into a wedlock with her, (b) and also from her acquiescing averments, made in paragraph-6, of, the apposite petition, wherein she acquiesces, vis-à- vis, the afore deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, retrieving, and, forcibly snatching, the, custody, of, minor Tejasvita Chandel, from the petitioner, and, thereafter his handing over the custody, of, the afore minor child, to, the respondent No. 2, one Vinod Kumari Chandel. Significantly, from, the afore, it also becomes evident qua both Vinod Kumari Chandel, and, one Ram Pratap Chandel, rather cohabiting together, and further, therethroughs, it, also becomes evident, qua there occurring acrimony, and, bitterness, in the marital ties, interse one Abhilasha Chandel and deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, and, also both rather not cohabiting together. However, even if, one Abhilasha chandel, assumingly, did not, cohabit, with deceased, Ram Pratap Chandel, and, rather he merely cohabit, only with one Vinod Kumari Chandel, yet dehors, there occurring no valid marriage interse Ram Pratap Chandel, and, one Abhilasha Chandel, (c) yet given a child becoming born, from their wedlock, obviously, the afore born child, is, a sequel, of, both cohabiting together, yet prior, to, the institution, of, the afore alluded petition, (d) hence, unless evidence surges forth, vis-à-vis, Abhilasha Chandel, not, being financially empowered, and, hence not being dependant, upon the income, of, the afore deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, she may not, become completely ousted, from claiming apposite dependence(s), significantly upon, the demise, of, the afore Ram Pratap Chandel, vis-à-vis, his income, nor would she become completely dis-entitled, to seek, qua, the, determined compensation amount, becoming ordered, to, become, apportioned, vis-à-vis, her also. However, a, reading, of, the testimony, of, Abhilasha Chandel, underscores the trite factum, vis-à-vis, hers being employed, and, also hers therefrom rather drawing a per mensem salary, (e) thereupon when she was financially empowered, to, fend for herself, hence she cannot be, concluded, to be dependant, upon, the income, as, derived, by, the afore deceased, one Ram Pratap Chandel, (f) nor hence she become entitled, to, any compensation, becoming determined, or becoming apportioned, vis-à-vis, her.
;