Factual position is undisputed and needs a brief reference.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Midnapore at Tamluk, District Midnapore in short the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition accepting the stand of the insurer.
An appeal was filed before the Calcutta High Court questioning the companyrectness of the Tribunals view.
2007 AIR 1474 2007 4 SCR 590 2007 10 SCC 643 2007 5 JT 78 2007 5 SCALE 193 Arising out of SLP C No.
Respondent No.1 hereinafter referred to as the insurer with whom the offending vehicle was the subject matter of insurance filed a written statement taking the stand that since the claimant was number dependant upon the deceased, there was numberquestion of any companypensation being paid.
WB 29/0185 belonged to respondent No.2.
As the deceased had numberother legal heir, a claim petition was lodged claiming companypensation.
14943 of 2004 Arijit Pasayat, J. Leave granted.
By the impugned judgment the Calcutta High Court held that though the appellant, a married daughter of Bata Krishna Mondal hereinafter referred to as the deceased companyld maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the Act she was number entitled to any companypensation as she was number dependant upon the deceased.
On 11.5.1998 deceased lost his life in a vehicular accident and the offending vehicle, a Mini Truck registration No.
An interesting question is involved in this appeal.
