Madhya Pradesh High Court
Halki Bai And Anr. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 25 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ187
JUDGMENT Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the award passed by Claims Tribunal.
2. An application for compensation was filed by the appellants and respondents Sarman Singh Kushwah with Bhuri Bai. Deceased Ram Ratan was the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2. He was the son of respondents Sarman Singh Kushwah and Bhuri Bai. He was travelling in the Tempo vehicle bearing No. CIW 6528, which got overturned due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver, and resulted in the accidental death of Ram Ratan.
3. On evidence, the learned Tribunal found that appellant No. 2 and respondents Sarman Singh Kushwah and Bhuri Bai were entitled to the compensation in 1/3rd share each. With regard to appellant No. 1, the Tribunal held that since the appellant had remarried, she was not entitled to any compensation and had, therefore, disallowed her claim.
4. In this appeal, the award is challenged by appellant No. 1 on the ground that by remarriage, the appellant could not be deprived from claiming compensation, after the death of her late husband Ram Ratan. The appellant No. 2 has challenged the award on the contention that she was entitled to larger share in the amount of compensation.
5. The crucial question in this appeal is whether the appellant No. 1 could not be granted any compensation after her remarriage and also whether she was entitled to receive any cash amount in hand from the share of compensation amount of appellant No. 2 for the maintenance of minor appellant No. 2, the daughter of deceased Ram Ratan.
6. Mr. R.D. Goyal, Advocate appealing for the appellants has placed reliance on the authorities of Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manjusri Raha 1968 ACJ 1 (MP); State of Orissa v. Archana Nayak 1987 ACJ 772 (Orissa); and Vimla Devi v. Chaman 1992 ACJ 1048 (Rajasthan), for seeking support of the contention that the widow would be entitled to receive the compensation, even after her remarriage, for the period she had not remarried. Mr. Goyal further submitted that in Hariram v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation 1994 ACJ 1094 (MP), the single Bench of this Court held that the widow would be entitled to receive compensation even after her remarriage.
7. Admittedly, the appellant No. 1 had not remarried for about 6 months after the death of her late husband. When the husband of a lady dies, it cannot be said that the lady does not suffer or that her suffering is wiped out by her remarriage. There is a scar created for her future life. The widow would, therefore, be entitled to receive compensation even after her remarriage, but not in the larger share, out of the amount of compensation, as it may be granted to the other heirs of the deceased.
8. In the facts and circumstances, we modify the award passed by the Tribunal and hold that all the four claimants are entitled to receive 1/4th share each, out of the amount of compensation. From the record it appears that respondents Sarman Singh Kushwah and Bhuri Bai have already received 50 per cent of the awarded amount of compensation. Out of the remaining amount, half of the amount shall remain deposited in the bank towards the share of appellant No. 2 till she attains majority. The remaining amount would be paid to appellant No. 1 in cash. She would meet out the maintenance expenses of appellant No. 2 from this amount.
With the above direction, this appeal is finally disposed of.