Telangana High Court

Pilli , Pittala Rajitha vs Md. Taher , Tahir on 6 March, 2024

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.621 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri V.Srikantha Rao for the

appellant/claimant No.1 and Sri. V.Ramachander Rao, learned

counsel for respondent nos.4 to 7/claimant Nos.4 to 7.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ claimant

No.1 aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family

Court-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge at Karimnagar (for

short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2562 of 2015, dated 06.03.2023.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

5. On 13.12.2014, the deceased viz., Pilli Raju, after attending

labor work at Koheda Village, took lift on the motorcycle of one

Gaddam Santhosh, his co-villager, for returning to his house at

Munjampally Village, Manakondur Mandal and while said Gaddam

Santhosh was riding the motorcycle and the deceased was

proceeding on the same as a pillion rider and when they reached LNA,J

near Indiranagar Village Chowrastha, the respondent no.1 drove

the lorry bearing registration No.AP-15-X-8505 (hereinafter

referred to as the offending vehicle) from Hyderabad side in rash

and in a negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle; that the

tires of the offending vehicle ran over the deceased, due to which,

the head and stomach of the deceased was crushed and expired

instantaneously, while said Gaddam Santhosh sustained grievous

injuries; that the Police, LMD Colony Police Station registered a

case as in crime No.285/2014 under Sections 304-A and 338 of

the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle

and subsequently filed charge-sheet against the driver of the

offending vehicle. The wife of the deceased filed the claim petition

under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of

compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum

from the date of the claim petition.

6. The respondent nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent

no.3-insurance company filed counter opposing the claim petition

mainly on the ground that the accident of the deceased occurred

due to negligent riding of the motorcycle by said Gaddam Santhosh

and not due to any fault on the part of the driver of the crime

vehicle; that at the time of the accident the respondent no.1 was LNA,J

not duly licensed to drive the offending vehicle, and the offending

vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness to ply on the road;

and that the compensation claimed by the claim petitioner is

excessive.

7. Respondents 4 and 5, who are the parents of the deceased,

opposed the claim petition on the ground that after the death of

the deceased, they conducted panchayath and in the said

panchayath, claim petitioner had received Rs.1,00,000/- cash,

gold and silver ornaments and other articles from them on

19.02.2015 that were presented to her at the time of marriage with

the deceased by her parents; that subsequently in the year 2015

the claim petitioner married one Kuna Ravi S/o. Kistaiah, R/o.

Ganneruvaram Village at the Matchya Girindra Swamy temple

Kothagattu Village and out of wedlock with said Kuna Ravi, they

blessed with children and presently, she is residing along with him

as his wife; and that the respondent nos.4 and 5 are not having

independent source of income, and they along with their daughters

(respondent nos.6 and 7) were depending on the earnings of the

deceased.

LNA,J

8. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who are the sisters of the

deceased, have filed counter opposing the claim petition on

identical lines as pleaded by the respondent nos.4 and 5 in their

counter.

9. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

"1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred on 13.12.2014 at about 07:30 PM due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle i.e. lorry bearing no.AP-15-X-8505, driven by the 1st respondent in high speed and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased and due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries and was died on the spot?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ? "

10. On behalf of the claim petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondent

no.3-insurance company, no oral evidence has been let in,

however, attested copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

On behalf of respondent nos.4 to 7, RW.1 was marked and

agreement dated 19.02.2015 was marked as Ex.B23.

11. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and

material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident in

which the deceased sustained fatal injuries had occurred solely LNA,J

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and

awarded compensation of Rs.15,90,800/- along with interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of

realization, payable by the respondent nos.1 to 3. The respondent

no.3 is to indemnify the liability of the respondent no.2. The

Tribunal further held that claim petitioner is entitled to receive

compensation of Rs.1,03,005/-, respondents 4 is entitled to receive

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, respondent No.5 is entitled to

receive compensation of Rs.8,37,795/- and the respondents 6 and

7 are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- each with

proportionate costs and interest.

12. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for

the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding

the compensation along with the parents on the ground that she

remarried; that the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of

the appellant, and at the time of accident, she was the wife of the

deceased, which is sufficient ground to entitle equal compensation

with her in-laws. He further submitted that simply because

appellant has now remarried, her claim does not abate or lessen.

In support of the contention, learned counsel for appellant relied

upon the following decisions:

LNA,J

i) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Palepu Mamatha 1;

ii) The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Bhagyashri Ganesh Gaikwad and others 2;

iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Baby 3;

iv) Smt. Vimla v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others 4;

v) Delhi Transport Corporation v. Meena Kumari 5;

vi) National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Nelphona 6;

vii) Kartar Kaur and others vs. Manoj Kumar and others 7;

viii) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v.

Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another 8;

ix) National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Chamundeswari and others 9;

x) Santosh Gupta and another vs. Surjit Singh and others 10

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7

herein submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and

material placed on record, the Hon'ble Tribunal had rightly

awarded the compensation. He further submitted that on

remarriage the widow loses the right to claim compensation and

therefore, appellant would not be entitled to any compensation and

Laws (APH) 2014

F.A.NO.111 of 2019, dated 3.3.2023 of High Court of Bombay

Laws (All) 2016 12 22

2007 (3) ALL MR (Journal) 22

Laws (DLH) 2010 2 21

Laws (Mad) 2012 8 138

Laws (P&H) 2014 2 269

(1987) 3 SCC 234

2021 LawSuit (SC) 594

2023 ACJ 1833 LNA,J

finally, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. In support of his

contention, he relied upon the following decisions:

i) Anju Mukhi v. Satish Kumar Bhatia 11;

ii) Anju Mukhi and another v. Satish K.Bhatia and others 12;

iii) Saroja v. Parvathy and others 13;

iv) N.Jayasree and others v. Cholamandalam MS General Ins. Co. Ltd., 14;

v) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kurnool v. Eda Anjanamma and others 15

Consideration :

14. The only issue arises in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal

has rightly awarded the apportionment of compensation to the

appellant ?

15. Perusal of the evidence and material placed on record would

show that deceased was expired on 13.12.2014 and the widow wife

of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal. During the

pendency of the claim petition, the wife of the deceased remarried

to one Kuna Ravi and she is having children out of her wedlock

1998 (1) ACJ 400

(2010) 15 SCC 630

2022 ACJ 1535

2021 ACJ 2685

2004 (1) ALD 117 LNA,J

with him. There is no dispute with regard to the said fact, which

evidencing from the evidence of claim petitioner as P.W.1 and

R.W.1, who is the father-in-law of P.W.1. Admittedly, the age of the

claim petitioner was aged 20 years by the date of filing of the claim

petition and during pendency of the claim petition, she re-married.

One cannot expect that for getting compensation of deceased

husband, the widow has to remain as such for a long time or till

getting compensation. Considering the younger age of the claim

petitioner as 20 years and by the time of accident, she was the wife

of the deceased, she is entitled for the compensation.

16. Section 166 of the MV Act provides for filing of an application

for compensation. The relevant portion of the said section is as

under:

"S.166. Application for compensation - (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made--

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal LNA,J

representatives, who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application"

17. M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation and any of the legal

representatives can file petition for compensation. Even if the

widow remarries after the death of her husband, she will not lose

her right to claim compensation. The widow who has been left

behind by her husband is entitled to compensation even after her

remarriage. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the

claimant is entitled to compensation.

18. The only short question which has to be decided by this

Court is the question of apportionment.

The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant:

19. In Palepu Mamatha (supra), reliance was placed on the

Madras High Court Judgment National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Nelphona, wherein it was held that,

"10. .... Under Section 166 of the MV Act it is provided that any of the legal representatives can file the 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 which lays down that after remarriage she does not continue to be the legal representative. The right of the succession accrues immediately on the death of husband and in the absence of any provision, she cannot be divested from the property vested in her due to remarriage.

LNA,J

11. .... it was held that "even if the claimant remarries after the death of her husband, she will not lose the right to claim compensation."

20. In Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the

Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in paragraph-10 held that "Section

166 provides that by all or any legal representative of deceased can

file application for compensation. The Claimant No.1 was the wife of

the deceased at the time of accident, being the legal representative,

she filed application for compensation, which is legal."

21. In Smt. Baby (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in

paragraph-8 held as under:

"8. Further, Section 166 of 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 act 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.

22. In Smt. Vimla (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya

Pradesh held as under:

"14. .... Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, it is provided that any of the legal representative can file the 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 which lays down that after remarriage she does not continue to be the legal representative. The right of succession accrues immediately on the death of husband and in the absence of any provision she cannot be divested from the property vested in her due to marriage.

LNA,J

23. In Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), the Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi in paragraph-19 placed reliance on Bhanwar Lal v.

Munshi Ram [1988 ACJ 283], wherein it was held that "it will not

be appropriate and justified on any ground to deduct anything on

account of remarriage of the widow of the deceased and to deny the

benefit of the compensation to the ageing parents of the deceased

person." It was further held in paragraph-20 that "in view of the

judgments, it was held that remarriage or possibility of remarriage

will not deprive a person from compensation for the death of the

spouse."

24. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nelphona, the Hon'ble

High Court of Madras held as under:

"13. Merely by the marriage, the legal heir-ship of the Appellant does not vanish as contended by the Counsel for the Appellant. As per Schedule-I of the Hindu Succession Act, the Appellant, being a widow of the deceased is a class-I legal heir of the deceased. Moreover, the claim is made by the appellant as a legal heir and the award becomes her property by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The right of the Appellant is a statutory right and the second marriage does not prohibit her statutory right. Moreover, there is no prohibition or restriction or exclusion under the Act claiming her right in the event of second marriage. ..."

25. In Kartar Kaur & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of

Punjab & Haryana in paragraph-9 placed reliance on Sunita v.

LNA,J

Ram Kumar [2012 4 Law Herald (P&H) 3325], wherein it was

held that,

"... a woman who chooses to remarry after the death of her husband is disentitled to receive compensation beyond the period she remained as a widow would go against the proposal of remarriage of a widow after the death of her husband. "In other words, taking such a drastic view would discourage the remarriage after the death of the husband. The widow who has been left behind by the husband is entitled to full compensation even after remarriage."

26. In paragraph-10 it was held that the arguments that the

widow is not entitled to any compensation after remarriage is

repelled and thereby held that the compensation be apportioned in

the ratio of 70:30 ratio to the widow and parents respectively.

27. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

Ahmedabad (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-13

held that

"13. ....Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. .... "

28. In Nidhi Goel & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of

Punjab & Haryana in paragraph-11 held that,

"11. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) entitles a "legal representative" of the deceased to claim compensation. There is no bar in the said Act against a widow from claiming compensation on account of her re-marriage. The term "legal representative" is not defined in the LNA,J

Act. A reference, however, can be made to Section 2(11) of the CPC, 1908, for its definition where said term means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of 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. After the death of her husband, the widow continues to represent his estate irrespective of her re-marriage because she inherits part of the estate of her deceased husband. Thus, such widow is included in the definition of "legal representative" as reproduced above and, thus, can maintain a petition under Section 166 of the Act even after her re-marriage. I draw support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suba Singh (supra) wherein it is has been held that a widow is entitled to compensation under section 357 of the Cr PC even after her re-marriage." Therefore, it was held that the widow of the deceased person is also entitled to claim compensation....""

29. In Santosh Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

paragraph-3, it was held that though contentions were raised that

the wife of deceased should not be entitled for compensation on the

ground that widow has subsequently married after the husband's

death, the Hon'ble Court proposed to not get into that aspect in

view of other peculiar facts involved in the instant case. It was

further held in paragraph-6 that as a major portion of the

compensation has been received by the wife of the deceased, the

enhanced amount with interest shall be the entitlement of the

parents who are the appellants in the appeals.

Citations relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents:

30. In Anju Mukhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

paragraph-4 held that, LNA,J

"4. The only challenge is to the finding that on remarriage the widow loses the right to claim compensation. It is to be seen that the main purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act is to award compensation for loss of income on the death of a person. On remarriage there is no longer a loss of income. Now the dependency has shifted on to the new husband. Therefore, we are in agreement with the High Court that after remarriage a widow would not be entitled to any compensation."

31. In Satish K. Bhatia (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of

Madhya Pradesh in paragraph-7 placed reliance on Manjula Devi

Bhuta v. Manju Shri Raha [1967 MPLJ 972], wherein it was

considered the question that a widow who remarried within a short

time, after the death of her husband would be entitled to

compensation, the court observed that the loss of dependency can

be ascertained only during the period of her widowhood when she

remained widow.

32. In State of Orissa v. Archana Naik 1987 ACJ 772 (Ori)

considering the meaning of legal representative used in Section

110-A of the Act and the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,

Hindu Adoptions and Succession Act and the decision referred,

observed that a widow would be entitled to compensation from the

date of death of her husband till her remarriage as thereafter she

ceases to be the legal representative of the deceased husband. In

Para 12 it was held that appellant was entitled to compensation LNA,J

only for a period from the date of accident taking into account of

the deceased and the dependency of the widow.

33. In Saroja (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in

paragraph-36 held as under:

"36. ... The cardinal principle in motor accident claims is to award compensation to the victim to the extent they have sustained loss or in other words, what they would have gained from the deceased had she been alive. Therefore, mere status of legal representative alone is not a criteria for claiming compensation and there should be a dependency and the same position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121...."

34. In N.Jayasree (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

paragraph-16 held as under:

"16. In our view, the term 'legal representative' should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined to only mean the spouse, parents and the deceased. As noticed above, MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfill the legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in the MV accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation."

35. In Eda Anjanamma (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in paragraph-20 held as under:

"20. After analyzing the above legal position it is made out that a widow of the deceased who died in the motor accident is entitled for compensation for loss of dependency, loss of consortium and LNA,J

the other items of compensation till she ceases to be the legal representative of her late husband on her remarriage. Therefore, she cannot be denied compensation completely and it has to be reduced on the basis of the period during which she remained as a widow of the deceased.

36. From the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for

appellant, it indicates that the provisions of Succession Act cannot

be applied in strict sense while deciding the dependency of the

claimant for compensation of the deceased arising out of the motor

accident. The various High Courts have also held that a widow

even after remarriage continues to be legal representative of her

deceased husband as there is no provision under the Hindu

Succession Act or any other law which lays down that after

remarriage she does not continue to be the legal representative.

37. Whereas from the decisions relied upon by the respondents,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the various High Courts have

taken a view that the widow after remarriage would no longer a

dependant on the deceased-husband and that there is no loss of

income. It is further observed that dependency of widow would

shift on to new husband and finally observed that after remarriage,

widow would not be entitled to any compensation.

LNA,J

38. In considered view of this Court, dependency and legal

representative are two different aspects. The widow may be

continued to be a legal representative of the deceased husband

even after remarriage depending upon facts and circumstances of

each case, however, she cannot be considered as dependent of the

deceased-husband after remarriage.

39. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Saroja (supra), by

relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma,

held that mere status of legal representative alone is not a criteria

for claiming compensation and there should be a dependency.

40. In Anju Mukhi (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of

Madhya Pradesh High Court has occasion to deal with the said

issue and the Division Bench has considered the question that the

widow, who remarried within a short time after the death of her

husband, would be entitled for compensation, the Court observed

that her loss of dependency can be ascertained only during the

period of her widowhood when she remarried widow.

41. The above matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anju Mukhi and another v.

Satish K.Bhatia and others (supra) upheld the findings of the LNA,J

Hon'ble Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and held as

under:

"4. The only challenge is to the finding that on remarriage the widow loses the right to claim compensation. It is to be seen that the main purpose of Motor Vehicles Act is to award compensation for loss of income on the death of a person. On remarriage there is no longer a loss of income. Now the dependency has shifted on to the new husband. Therefore, we are in agreement with the High Court and that after remarriage a widow would not be entitled to any compensation."

42. In the present case, the appellant filed the O.P., claiming

compensation on account of death of her husband in a road

accident and during pendency of the said O.P., she got remarried

and it is represented that she was also blessed with children.

43. In the light of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Anju Mukhi (supra), the appellant cannot be treated as

dependent of the deceased-husband and thus, she is not entitled

to compensation.

44. In the present case, the husband of the appellant expired in

a road accident on 13.12.2014 and she remarried one Sri Kuna

Ravi in the year 2015, which fact is not controverted by the

appellant. The claim petition was filed by the widow on