Telangana High Court
Mukka Laxmi Bai , M.Lachavva vs Neeraja, Now W/O.Harish Kumar Kottawar on 7 March, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2946 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Common Judgment and Decree dated
19.10.2006 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned judgment')
passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad
(hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in O.P.No.677 of 2000
and O.P.No.45 of 2002, the petitioner/claimant in O.P.No.677 of
2000 i.e., mother of the deceased filed the present Appeal to
modify the common judgment and decree dated 19.10.2006 and
thereby prayed to dismiss the O.P.No.45 of 2002.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are that the petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the death
of her son by name 'Nagaraju' in the road traffic accident that
occurred on 07.03.2000. The petitioner arraigned the wife of
the deceased as respondent No.1, as the wife of the deceased got
remarried. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the death
MGP,J
of her son is that on 07.03.2000 while the deceased was
opening the lock of his shop M/s. Venkateswara Agencies,
Husnabad Street, Armoor, a van bearing No. AP 25 T 4816
(hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') driven by its
driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against the
deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained crush injuries to
head and died on the spot. It is submitted by the petitioner that
since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the crime vehicle, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 being
the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. It is to be observed that even the wife of the deceased i.e.,
respondent No.1 in the instant case also filed another O.P.
No.45 of 2002 seeking compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the
death of her husband i.e., the deceased by showing mother of
the deceased as respondent No.3 in the said OP.
5. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.2/owner
of the crime vehicle remained exparte and whereas the
respondent No.3/insurer of the crime vehicle filed counter
denying the petition averments including the manner of the
accident, age and earnings of the deceased. It was further
MGP,J
contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having
valid driving license at the time of accident and that claim of the
petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and thus, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner in
O.P.No.677 of 2000/mother of the deceased, PWs 1 and 2, CWs
1 to 3 were examined apart from exhibiting Exs.A1 to A10. On
behalf of the petitioner in O.P.No.45 of 2002/wife of the
deceased, PW1 was examined apart from exhibiting Exs.A1 to
A10. On behalf of respondents/insurance Company, no oral or
documentary evidence was adduced in either of the cases.
Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Tribunal passed common judgment, wherein the mother of the
deceased was awarded Rs.4,20,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- was
awarded in favour of wife of the deceased. Aggrieved by the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the
wife of the deceased, the mother of the deceased i.e., the
appellant/petitioner preferred the present Appeal to modify the
common judgment and thereby prayed to dismiss O.P.No.45 of
2002.
MGP,J
7. Heard Sri K. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant/petitioner, Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company and
perused the record including the grounds of Appeal.
8. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have
not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned judgment.
There is also no dispute with regard to the manner of the
accident, as the learned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence
of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence under
Exs.A1 (FIR), A2 (charge sheet), A3 (inquest panchanama), A4
(MVI Report) and A5 (PME report) arrived to a conclusion that
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
crime vehicle. There is no dispute even with regard to
subsistence of Ex.A9 at the time of accident.
9. The only contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/mother of the deceased is that the wife of the
deceased i.e., respondent No.1 in O.P.No.677 of 2000 got
married within ten months from the date of death of her
husband and also begotten a child, as such, she is not entitled
for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- except loss of consortium
and loss of income.
MGP,J
10. In Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company v.
Bhagyashri Gaikwad 1 the High Court of Bombay observed that
one cannot expect that for getting compensation of deceased
husband, the widow has to remain widow for life time or till
getting compensation. It was further observed that after death of
husband remarriage cannot be a taboo to get compensation. In
Bridget Irene and another v. Dincy Devassy and another2
the Honourable Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the
High Court of Delhi that a widow's right to claim compensation
under Motor Vehicle Act for the death of her husband in a
motor vehicle accident will not abate on her re-marriage.
11. It is to be seen that the primary consideration in motor
vehicle accident compensation claims is whether the claimant
was a dependent of the deceased at the time of death. If the wife
was dependent on her deceased husband at the time of his
death, she is generally entitled to compensation. Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act states about who can file Application for
Compensation, which is extracted hereunder:
"1) An application for compensation arising out of an
accident of the nature specified in subsection (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
2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 176
2 Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.9844/2020, dated 06.04.2021
MGP,J
from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased; or ------"
12. A perusal of the above provision does not say that
remarriage after the husband's death does not automatically
disqualify her from receiving compensation. However, courts
may consider remarriage as a factor when determining the
amount of compensation, particularly under the loss of
dependency head. If remarriage improves the financial
condition of the claimant, the Tribunal may reduce the
compensation accordingly. If the widow remarries soon after
the death and is supported by her new husband, her claim for
loss of dependency may be weakened, but she can still claim
compensation for other aspects such as loss of consortium and
funeral expenses. Expecting a widow to remain unmarried to
claim compensation is unreasonable and that remarriage
should not be a barrier to receiving due compensation.
13. In Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v.
Rajni and others 3 the High Court of Panjab and Haryana
observed as under:
"In Gianis W/o. Late Anil Abraham vs. Lazar Manjila S/o. Joy
Manjila, 2020(3) ILR (Kerala) 457, while considering the question of
entitlement of the widow of the deceased, in pursuance of her re-marriage, it
was observed, as herein given:-
3 FAO-2917-2014 (O&M), Decided on 17.11.2023
MGP,J
"22. It is to be noted that the 1st appellant would not
have thought of a remarriage, but for the untimely death of her
husband. It was not a remarriage on account of divorce. The
Court has to consider the psychological hurdles that the widow
will face on account of remarriage. The society is changing. The
age old concept of a remarried widow cutting off all relations
with the family of her ex-husband, is becoming a story of the
past. Fact remains that the 1st respondent was dependent on
the deceased and would have remained so, but for the demise
of her husband consequent to the accident. The death has
indeed resulted in loss of dependency. After the death of
husband, a widow may go for employment and become self-
dependent or may opt for remarriage. Either way, the loss of
dependency consequent to the death of the husband does not
cease merely because she has remarried or became self-reliant.
The word dependency and legal representative, therefore,
should receive a pragmatic interpretation. While computing
compensation for dependency of a widow on the death of her
husband under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
her remarriage shall not be a decisive factor."
14. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes a
widow the legal representative of her deceased husband
immediately after his death in a vehicular accident. There is no
bar in the said Act against a widow from claiming compensation on
account of her remarriage. The widow's right to compensation is a
vested right that cannot be denied just because she remarries. The
widow should not be punished by depriving her of the
compensation for the death of her husband. In the State of
Tripura and another v. Smt. Bela Dey (Das) and another 4, the
High Court of Gauhati held that a widow, who remarries during
pendency of a claim petition, is entitled to compensation. The
relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
AIR 2010 (NOC) 156 (Gau)
MGP,J
"Neither in section 165 nor in section 166, there is any
restriction/bar prohibiting or disqualifying a widow, who remarries during
the pendency of a claim petition, from getting compensation for the death of
her husband. In view of the provisions laid down in section 166, as the
widow of the deceased becomes the legal representative of the deceased,
immediately on the death of her husband in a vehicular accident, her right
to seek compensation under the M.V Act accrues in her favour. There is no
principle of limited heir and there is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act that
in order to get compensation the widow is required to remain unmarried. As
the right to claim compensation accrues immediately on the death of the
husband, in the absence of any contrary provision, she cannot be divested
from her statutory right to get such compensation as provided by the
statute only on the ground of subsequent remarriage, to which she is
lawfully entitled. There can be no dispute in understanding that after the
death of a husband, in our society, the life of the widow cripples
abnormally and she is subjected to all kinds of indignities, compelling her
to take shelter in her parents house and if her parents are not alive and
even if they are alive, sometimes due to their poor economic condition they
can hardly look after such widow. It will not be appropriate to expect a
widow, more particularly, a young lady, who loses her husband at the
early part of her life to continue to live the rest of her life without the
company of a male member. That apart, in the absence of a sufficient
financial support and social security, such young widow may get exposed
to any kind of exploitation. The only way to save herself from such
indignity, miseries, and hardship etc., is to take the company of a male by
entering into a second marriage and thereby paving the way to lead a
comfortable and respectable life in the society. The option for remarriage
being legally permissible, the widow should be encouraged for remarriage.
Therefore, she should not be punished by depriving her from the
compensation for the death of her husband. Refusal to give compensation
only on the ground of remarriage would amount to discouraging the widow
remarriage system, which system is good for the health of civilized society.
A widow, if she can find a suitable husband, even during the pendency of
her claim petition, cannot be expected to wait to enter into remarriage till
the disposal of her claim petition. The pendency of the claim petition and
delay in such disposal cannot be her fault. From the perspective of a
welfare and civilized society, the remarriage of the widow cannot be
discouraged in any manner. Therefore, there cannot be any impediment or
restriction compelling a widow not to remarry till the disposal of her claim
petition. Admittedly, for the welfare and betterment of the society, the
remarriage of the widow is beneficial. Therefore, there should be incentive
for such remarriage towards betterment of the society. Moreover, her right
to get the compensation accrued to her much prior to her remarriage. In
fact, she wanted to realize the compensation, which she earned prior to
such remarriage. What she earned under the statute at a particular point of
time can't be denied on the ground that there was delay in disposal of legal
proceeding. The M.V Act does not provide any provision, by which such
right can be taken away due to the subsequent remarriage, that too after
filing the claim petition. The loss both mental and financial caused to her
due to death of her husband cannot be suitably compensated by the
subsequent marriage. Even after her remarriage, a widow generally does
not enjoy the same status and benefit of decent life as she used to get
MGP,J
during the life-time of her deceased husband. In the present case in hand,
there is nothing on record to find that, after her re-marriage, the claimant
widow used to get the same amount of financial benefit which was
available to her during the life-time of her deceased husband. There is no
evidence regarding the financial condition of her second husband. A widow
may enter into the second marriage due to various reasons and such
remarriage may not be a suitable substitute for all purposes including
financial support. She may not get the pecuniary support, which she used
to get from her deceased husband. Therefore, it cannot be held that the
pecuniary loss caused due to death of her deceased husband was
compensated by the subsequent marriage and as such she can't get the
compensation as claimed for."
15. In the instant case, the wife of the deceased has filed
O.P.No.272 of 2000 on the file of learned Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Adilabad but the mother of the
deceased filed a transfer petition before the High Court seeking
transfer of O.P.No.272 of 2000 from the file of learned
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Adilabad to the file
of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad to try
along with O.P.No.677 of 2000. Accordingly, the said transfer
petition was allowed and O.P.No.272 of 2000 was transferred to
the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nizamabad and renumbered as O.P.No.45 of 2002. Thus, it is
clear that the wife of the deceased got remarried during the
pendency of the claim petition.
16. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife of the deceased i.e., Rs.52,070/-
towards loss of contribution for eleven months i.e., till the date
MGP,J
of remarriage, Rs.5,000/- towards consortium, Rs.42,930/-
towards love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental
agony. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount
under loss of contribution/loss of dependency beyond the
remarriage of the wife of the deceased with another person. As
stated supra, the wife or mother of the deceased have not
preferred any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
The only contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/mother of the deceased is that since the wife of the
deceased i.e., respondent No.1 in O.P.No.677 of 2000 got
married within 10 months after the death of the deceased and
also begotten child, she is not entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- except loss of consortium and loss of income,
more particularly, when the wife of the deceased already
received Rs.8,50,000/-, Rs.15,000/- (FD Amount), 8 tulas of
gold as per the agreement dated 05.12.2000 towards full and
final settlement. It is to be seen that the said alleged agreement
dated 05.12.2000 is not placed either before the learned
Tribunal or before this Court. Thus, this Court is not inclined to
go into the merits and demerits of the case so far as the alleged
agreement is concerned. Moreover, there is no evidence to
establish that the wife of the deceased has received the above
MGP,J
said emoluments as per the said alleged agreement. As stated
supra, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amount
to the wife of the deceased only until the date of her remarriage.
Even as per the version of the appellant/mother of the
deceased, the wife of the deceased is entitled for loss of
consortium and loss of income. The learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and
Rs.52,070/- towards loss of contribution. The remaining part of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is Rs.1,00,000/-
towards mental agony.
17. It is to be seen that as on the date of filing of the petition,
the age of the wife of the deceased was 20 years, which is tender
age for a women to lose her husband. Had the deceased been
alive, the question of remarriage by his wife does not arise. The
wife of the deceased may not get the pecuniary support, which
she used to get from her deceased husband, as such, it cannot
be construed that the pecuniary loss caused due to death of her
deceased husband was compensated by the subsequent
marriage. In the absence of a sufficient financial support and
social security, such young widow may get exposed to any kind
of exploitation. The loss both mental and financial caused to her
due to death of her husband cannot be suitably compensated by
MGP,J
the subsequent marriage. Even after her remarriage, a widow
generally does not enjoy the same status and benefit of decent
life as she used to get during the life-time of her deceased
husband. It is also to be noted that the remarriage of the wife of
the deceased is not on account of divorce. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the wife of the deceased is
not entitled for compensation on account of her remarriage. It
is not even the case of the appellant/mother of the deceased
that the compensation awarded to the wife of the deceased
ought to have been awarded to her i.e., appellant/mother of the
deceased and in fact the appellant/mother of the deceased is
seeking dismissal of the claim petition filed by the wife of the
deceased. There is no provision for dismissing the claim
petition filed by wife of the deceased merely on the ground that
the wife/claimant has remarried another person. Thus, viewed
from any angle, there is no justification in the arguments of
counsel for the appellant to dismiss the claim petition of the
wife of the deceased.
18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the
appellant/mother of the deceased failed to establish any of the
grounds enabling this Court to interfere with the well reasoned
MGP,J
impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this
appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 07.03.2025
AS
