Nisha vs Gyanwati and Others

Pardeep Nandrajog, J.—Deceased Sunil Kumar, aged 22 years, died in a road accident on 06.06.02. He was survived by his wife Nisha and parents, Aman Singh and Gyanwati. They filed a claim petition u/s 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 15 lacs on account of death of the deceased in the said road accident.

Vide award dated 18.08.2005, learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,78,772/-.

Noting that the wife of the deceased, Nisha remarried on 07.04.03, learned Tribunal granted 20% of the compensation to her and balance 80% to the parents of the deceased.

Aggrieved by the apportionment effected by the learned Tribunal between the appellant i.e. widow and respondents no. 1 and 2 i.e. parents, appellant has filed the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in granting only 20 % of the compensation amount to the widow of the deceased. He further contends that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned compensation amount equally between the widow and parents of the deceased.

Learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon decisions reported as Bhuribai and Another Vs. Shyam Sunder and Others and Hariram and Others Vs. Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, in support of his contention that compensation should have been apportioned equally between widow and parents of the deceased.

From the facts which are not in dispute, it is clear that on 7.4.2003 appellant remarried one Mahesh. She got remarried within 1 year of death of her husband when claim petition was pending.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 while providing for making application for compensation arising out of an accident in case of death, provided that the application has to be made "by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased". The application shall be made on behalf or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representative who have not so joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

The expression ''legal representatives'' has not been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, but it has been defined u/s 2(11) of the CPC to mean "a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased."

It does not require much discussion that the right to claim compensation must be confined to those persons alone who are entitled to be maintained and supported by the victim and that they must be his legal representatives.

In the backdrop of the above legal position in regard to the right to claim compensation, I now proceed to consider the main point.

The effect of remarriage by a widow after the death of her husband has been considered in several cases from time to time. However, before coming to the cases, I examine some analgous provisions in the relevant laws dealing with the rights of the widows.

u/s 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856 all rights and interests of a widow in a deceased husband''s property cease upon her remarriage and have to be determined ''as if she had then died''. But by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the provision of Section 2 of the 1856 Act stands abrogated. (See Jagdish Mahton Vs. Mohammad Elahi and Others, But, nonetheless it cannot be disputed that on remarriage the wife ceases to be a legal representative of her first husband.

u/s 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 a widow upon her remarriage ceases to be dependent upon her deceased husband and her dependency ends.

Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides that a widow daughter-in-law is entitled to be maintained by the father-in-law in certain circumstances. But the obligation to maintain ceases on the remarriage of the daughter-in-law.

By virtue of Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 the right of a wife to claim maintenance from her husband ceases upon her remarriage.

Thus, the juristic principle is that the entitlement of widow/wife ceases upon remarriage. If wife would not claim financial contribution upon her remarriage on pari materia reasoning, the widow cannot claim compensation on basis of loss of dependency after her remarriage.

In the decision reported as State of Orissa Vs. Smt. Archana Nayak and Others, the Division Bench held that there is cessation of status of widow as the legal representative of her husband and she suffers a civil death so far as the estate of her first husband is concerned. It was further observed that the widow of the deceased will be entitled to compensation only for the period during which she remained as his widow till the date of her remarriage. The same view was endorsed in the decision reported as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Eda Anjanamma and Others,

In decision reported as Makbool Ahmed and Others Vs. Bhura Lal and Others, Rajasthan High Court took the view that if a widow remarries after the death of her husband, her dependency ends and the amount of compensation has to be calculated only upto the date of her remarriage.

A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision reported as Manjula Devi Bhuta and Another Vs. Manjusri Saha and Others, held that if the widow remarries, loss would be assessed only for the period she remained as a widow. The same view was taken by a Single Judge of this Court in the decision reported as Mohinder Kumar Vs. Devi and Others, .

At this stage, I note decisions of various High Courts where contrary view was taken.

In the decision reported as Vimla Devi and Others Vs. Chaman and Others, a learned Single Judge held that the compensation assessed on the basis of principles of assessment cannot be reduced on account of remarriage or prospects of remarriage of the widow which will be against the spirit of the Constitution and will put a check on the remarriage system provided under various legislations.

In the decision reported as Khairullah and Another Vs. Anita and Others, learned Single Judge held that remarriage will not debar the widow from her right to claim compensation and it cannot be taken as a ground to refuse compensation as being a widow no person of equal status of the deceased husband would come forward to remarry her.

In the decision reported as Manthani Kittamma Vs. Tippireddy Veera Reddy and others, a learned Single Judge held that a widow getting remarried is not a bar to grant compensation

As regards the decision relied upon by the appellant reported as Hariram and Others Vs. Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, it was held that even after remarriage widow cannot be deprived of a right of getting compensation.

The decision is not applicable as it relates to Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 as definition of ''dependents'' under Workmen''s Compensation Act has a wider meaning.

Considering aforenoted decisions, in my opinion, the cardinal principle that has to be applied in these types of cases is that since the widow ceases to be legal representative of the deceased and also his dependent, it would be appropriate if the loss of dependency is confined to the period from the date of the accident till the date of remarriage of the widow.

The question whether widow is entitled to get compensation after her remarriage can also be approached from another point of view. Compensation is granted for loss of dependency. It is assessed with reference to the loss of future pecuniary benefit, that is to say, the loss of financial contribution which the deceased made had he lived. The widow ceases to be a dependent upon her remarriage. (See Section 21(iii) read with Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act). If the fact of remarriage is ignored, the widow is compensated for the loss which she does not suffer.

In the instant case, husband of the widow died on 06.06.2002 and widow remarried on 7.4.2003. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation only for a period of 11 months. Learned Tribunal has awarded 20% of the compensation to the widow. Thus, the learned Tribunal has already awarded more than adequate compensation to the widow/appellant.

I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned award.

Dismissed. No costs.