Will the Supreme Court reappreciate concurrent findings on whether a claimant was the legally wedded wife?

Paragraph 15Priyanka Das pursued the claim for compensation asserting a clear case that she is the wife of the deceased Sushant Prabhakaran. The burden of proof, even in a summary proceeding as the present one indisputably, is with Priyanka Das. The Tribunal and the High Court have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence pleaded to confirm the finding of fact that Priyanka Das was not his legally wedded wife. We are not reappreciating the evidence to record a different finding, nor to express our concurrence with the view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court. The above considerations take us to the other serious point argued by Mr Prashanto Chandra Sen, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for Priyanka Das. He argues that the Courts have rightly relied upon the precedent in the Manjuri Bera[^5] case but granted 5 per cent apportionment of the total compensation received on the demise of Sushant Prabhakaran. The claim of Priyanka Das for injuries is considered separately and determined by a judgment of even date. In matters such as the present, mathematical precision is not always sought or applied by the Courts and the Tribunals, but the claimants are awarded just and fair compensation and in the process, what is due is not denied; what is undeserving is not awarded. For the above reasons, the Impugned Judgment has followed the binding precedents, and therefore, does not warrant interference.