Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Baby & 4 Others on 16 December, 2016
Bench: Krishna Murari, Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
A.F.R.
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1942 of 2016
Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Baby & 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Behari Lal Gour
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Prakash
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the judgement and award dated 4.3.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar awarding a sum of Rs.11,72,360/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents along with 7% simple interest from the date of making of the application till actual payment.
Facts are that claimant-respondents made an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.32,71,300/- along with 12% interest on the allegation that Pramod Kumar Yadav after completing his duty on 20.7.2013 at about 6-7 p.m. while returning back home sitting on a motorcycle as pillion rider being driven by Santosh Kumar Yadav was hit by a loader bearing registration no. U.P.-78CN-1873 coming from wrong direction being driven in rash and negligent manner, on account of which the driver of the motorcycle Santosh Kumar Yadav and the pillion rider Pramod Kumar Yadav both suffered serious injuries and were taken to Hailet Hospital where both of them died. At the time of accident, deceased Pramod Kumar Yadav was about 24 years and was earning about Rs.11,300/- per month from private job and dairy business. Claim petition was filed by deceased's wife and parents.
Proceedings were contested by the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company by filing written statement.
The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record both oral and documentary returned a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending loader, which after moving on wrong side hit the motorcycle on account of which Pramod Kumar Yadav died. The Tribunal further held that the driver of the offending loader was having a valid license and it was duly insured with the Insurance Company and was having all valid papers.
On the question of quantum, in the absence of any evidence on record, the Tribunal did not accept the allegation that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.11,300/- per month. However, on the basis of the oral testimony of P.W. 3, the Manager of M/s. A.R. Polymers, who proved that the deceased was working as a Senior Helper in the factory situate at Roma and drawing Rs.5600/- per month as salary, the Tribunal held the income of the deceased Rs.5673/-. The Tribunal awarded 50% towards future prospects in accordance with Rule 220A of the Motor Vehicles Rules and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses determined dependency of Rs.68,080/-. In accordance with the age of the deceased which was found to be 24 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 and accordingly determined Rs.11,57,360/- as compensation. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5000/- towards loss consortium, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate. In this manner, a total sum of Rs.11,72,360/- as compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that it was established by cogent evidence that Smt. Baby, the wife of the deceased remarried after death of Pramod Kumar Yadav, hence, she was not entitled to any compensation and the Tribunal has wrongly and illegally treated her as a dependent and awarded compensation. It is pointed out that after remarriage, her dependency is ceased and she is not entitled to claim any compensation.
In reply, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no. 1 has tried to justify the impugned order. It was submitted on her behalf that merely by remarriage, wife of the deceased will not be deprived of claiming compensation on account of death of her spouse.
We have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The question which arises for our consideration is whether wife of a person who died in an accident looses the rights to claim compensation on account of loss of her status and dependency after her remarriage.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a social welfare legislation and is not liable to be interpreted in the manner which may defeat the very purpose of its enactment. It is understandable that after death of her husband, the life of a widow in most of the cases becomes very miserable and if she has no financial support, she has to depend on other relations for her survival. If she remarries that can give her to lead her life in more respectable manner and thus it would be highly improbable to compel her to lead a life of widow to receive compensation and if she remarries she cannot be denied compensation because the same would amount to nullifying one of the very purpose of enactment for providing compensation to victims of road accident.
Further, Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that any of the representatives can file claim petition. Widow even after remarriage continues to be the legal representative of her husband as there is no provision under the Hindu Succession Act or any other law laying down that after remarriage she does not continue to be the legal representative. The right of succession accrues immediately on death of her husband and in the absence of any provision, she cannot be divested from the property vested in her due to remarriage.
The word "Legal Representative" has been defined in Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure to mean that person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & another, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1474 while considering the question as to whether a married daughter could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether she would be entitled to any compensation as she was dependent upon the deceased considered the provisions of Section 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure and relying upon the earlier observations of the Court in the case of Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarion vs. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 (2) SCR 810 observed that "the definition contained in Section 2(11) C.P.C. is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression 'legal representative'. As observed in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, (1987) 3 SCR 404, a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child."
Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Kishan v. Meena Kumari, reported in 2011 ACJ 1211 has held that remarriage will not deprive a person from claiming compensation for the death of her/his spouse.
The same view has been taken by Madras High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Co. Ltd. vs. Nelphona and others, 2014 ACJ 964.
In view of above facts and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that remarriage cannot be held to be a disqualification for getting compensation. Merely by the remarriage, the legal heirship of the claimant does not vanish. The right to claim compensation is a statutory right and second marriage does not prohibit the same. Moreover, there is no such provision or restriction or exclusion of the right in the Act in the event of remarriage after becoming widow. The changing patterns of life do have an impact on the law and life of a given society and the law must keep pace with the changing socio-economic trend in the society. In other words, the law should be an instrument of social change. Social justice provides for a potential force for attainment of a progressive society.
Similar view has been taken by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sunita vs. Ram Kumar, (2012) 4 Law Herald (P&H) 3325. In the said case, learned single Judge observed as under :
"I am not in agreement with the view that a woman who chooses to remarry after the death of his husband is disentitled to receive compensation beyond the period she remained as a widow. Such a view would go against the proposal of remarriage of the widow after the death of her husband. In other words, taking such a drastic view would discourage the marriage after the death of the husband. The widow who has been left behind by the husband is entitled to full compensation even after remarriage."
The same view was endorsed by the said Court in the case of Kartar Kaur and others vs. Manoj Kumar and others, 2015 ACJ 1836.
For the aforesaid facts and discussions, the argument that the widow after remarriage is not entitled to any compensation is not liable to be accepted and is hereby rejected. No other ground was urged and pressed before us.
Appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 16.12.2016
nd
Judgement delivered by me under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Rules of the Court.
(Krishna Murari, J.)
