JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

The instant appeal has been instituted by the appellant–claimant, namely, the mother of the deceased, invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1988”). The challenge is confined to the quantum of compensation, with a prayer for enhancement of her share as determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Judge, Haldwani, vide judgment and award dated 18.10.2019, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.146 of 2018. By the said award, learned Tribunal was pleased to grant a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of the present appellant, together with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of actual realization, fastening liability upon the respondent–Insurance Company.

2. The brief factual conspectus, as emerges from the record, is that on 09.06.2018, at about 07:00 p.m., the husband of respondent no.2, namely, late Parvendra Singh @ Pappu Karki, was travelling in a motor car bearing registration No. UK04-H-7447, along with his companions, proceeding from Gauniyaro to Haldwani. When the said vehicle reached in the vicinity of Village Murkudia Haidakhan, the driver, Pushkar Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the vehicle, causing it to plunge into a deep gorge. As a direct consequence of the said accident, late Parvendra Singh @ Pappu Karki, the driver Pushkar Singh, and one other occupant of the vehicle sustained fatal injuries and succumbed at the spot, while two other co-passengers suffered grievous bodily injuries. The occurrence of the unfortunate incident was forthwith intimated to Police Station Patti Rousil, whereupon First Information Report being Case Crime No. 02 of 2018 came to be registered, under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while advancing his submissions, has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal fell in grave error in failing to duly appreciate the fact that the present appellant is none other than the mother of the deceased, and was a rightful claimant before the Tribunal. It has been urged that the Tribunal, while determining the compensation, overlooked the vital circumstance that the appellant is an elderly widow of about 63 years of age, who has no independent means of livelihood and was wholly dependent upon the financial support and care of her deceased son. Learned counsel has further submitted that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, and, upon his untimely demise, the appellant has been left in a pitiable condition, without any sustainable source of income to meet even her elementary needs of food, shelter, medical care and day-to-day living. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be “just compensation” within the meaning of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel has strenuously argued that the Tribunal, while apportioning the compensation, acted contrary to the settled principles of law, inasmuch as, it failed to distribute the award equitably amongst all the claimants, and disproportionately favoured the widow and minor son of the deceased, thereby relegating the mother–appellant to a position of near exclusion. Such distribution, it is urged, is neither in consonance with statutory principles nor with the mandate of natural justice, which requires equal and fair consideration of the rights of all dependents of the deceased. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the evolving jurisprudence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to “consortium” and “loss of dependency,” and submitted that the Tribunal has completely disregarded the head of “filial consortium” as recognized in authoritative pronouncements, particularly in “Magma General Insurance Co. Lt