KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER,J. - (1.) The Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, which granted compensation to the claimant, who was the daughter of the deceased, who died in the vehicular accident on 26.6.1998. The deceased was 45 years old leaving behind her the claimant, who was the only legal representative as defined in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(2.) The contention is that the claimant is a married daughter and not dependent on the deceased and, therefore, no compensation could have been awarded in M.A.C.P. No. 104 of 2002, vide order dated 26.5.2007.
(3.) Brief facts are that on the date of accident, i.e., 26.6.1998 at about 2:00 to 3:00 pm, when the deceased was coming back with her son-in-law, Om Prakash Chaurasia, a vehicle from the opposite direction bearing No. WB12A-1255, was driving rashly and negligently dashed her. The deceased succumbed to her injuries when she was taken to the hospital. The respondent No. 1 was summoned but despite summons being served, the opponent No. 1, namely Mangaldev Prasad, did not appear before the Tribunal and, therefore, the matter was conducted against him. In light of the judgment of the Apex Court in UPSRTC v. Mamta, reported in AIR 1996 SC 948 , all the issued raised in the appeal have to be decided and, therefore, the Tribunal framed all the four issued and held all of them against the owner and the Insurance Company. None appeared for the Insurance Company. The appellant examined as P.W.-1, namely, Seema Chaurasia and P.W.-2 was Sandeep Kumar Chaurasia.;