Remarriage Of Widow Not Ground To Deny Motor Accident Compensation For Husband's Death: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that a widow's right to claim compensation for the death of her husband in a motor accident does not stand extinguished merely because she remarried during the pendency of the claim proceedings.

The court was hearing a woman's plea challenging a portion of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Tribunal to her daughter-in-law (who had eventually remarried), on account of her son's death in an accident. 

Justice M.G. Priyadarsini observed:

“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 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.”

The court held that wife's remarriage was not on account of divorce. It also noted that mother-in-law had not argued that the compensation awarded to her deceased son's wife should have been given to the mother-in-law. She had infact sought dismissal of her daughter-in-law's claim petition. 

It thus said:

"In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the wife of the deceased is not entitled for compensation on account of her remarriage. 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".

The case arose out of a road accident that took place on 07.03.2000. According to the mother of the deceased, her son Nagaraju died when a van bearing No. AP 25 T 4816, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him while he was opening the lock of his shop at Armoor. She filed O.P. No.677 of 2000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.15 lakh from the owner and insurer of the vehicle.

The deceased's wife also filed a separate claim petition, O.P. No.45 of 2002, seeking compensation of Rs.16 lakh for the death of her husband. Before the Tribunal, the insurer denied the manner of accident, age and earnings of the deceased, and also contended that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. However, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

By a common award, the Tribunal granted Rs.4,20,000 to the mother of the deceased and Rs.2,00,000 to the wife. The mother approached the High Court, not to seek enhancement of her own compensation, but to challenge the award in favour of the deceased's wife and to seek dismissal of the latter's claim petition altogether.

The principal contention advanced by the appellant-mother was that the widow had remarried within ten months of the death of her husband and had also begotten a child thereafter. Therefore the widow was not entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000 except under limited heads such as consortium and loss of income. It was also argued that the widow had already received certain amounts and valuables under an alleged settlement agreement dated 05.12.2000.

The high court noted that the alleged agreement dated 05.12.2000 had not been placed either before the Tribunal or before the High Court, and that there was no evidence establishing receipt of the alleged amounts by the widow. The Court therefore declined to go into the merits of that plea.

It then referred to the statutory scheme under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which permits “all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased” to maintain a claim for compensation. The Court observed that the provision does not state that remarriage after the husband's death automatically disqualifies the widow from receiving compensation.

The Court also referred to precedents holding that remarriage cannot be treated as a taboo for the purpose of motor accident compensation. It noted the view that one cannot expect a widow to remain unmarried for life merely to retain a claim for compensation, and that remarriage should not become a barrier to the receipt of due compensation.

Significantly, the Court found that even the Tribunal had not awarded the widow loss of dependency beyond the date of her remarriage. The award in her favour included Rs.52,070 towards loss of contribution for eleven months, i.e., till the date of remarriage, Rs.5,000 towards consortium, Rs.42,930 towards love and affection, and Rs.1,00,000 towards mental agony. Thus, the Tribunal had already calibrated the compensation keeping in view the fact of remarriage.

The Court also took into account that the widow was only 20 years old when she lost her husband. It observed that had the deceased been alive, “the question of remarriage by his wife does not arise,” and that the widow's subsequent remarriage could not be treated as wiping out the mental and financial loss caused by the death of her husband.

Holding that the mother had failed to make out any ground to interfere with the Tribunal's “well reasoned” award, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Mukka Laxmi Bai M Lachavva v Neeraja Now and others

Case Number: M.A.C.M.A. No.2946 of 2009

Appearance: Sri K. Mahender Reddy for the appellant/petitioner; Sri V. Krishna Rao, Standing Counsel, for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

Click Here To Read/Download Order