The Madras 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. Justice M.G. Priyadarsini observed that the primary consideration in motor accident compensation claims is whether the claimant was a dependent of the deceased at the time of death, and if the wife was dependent on her deceased husband at the time of his death, she is generally entitled to compensation. The Court further noted that Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes a widow the legal representative of her deceased husband immediately after his death in a vehicular accident, and there is no bar in the said Act against a widow from claiming compensation on account of her remarriage.
The case arose out of a road traffic accident that occurred on 07.03.2000 at Armoor. The deceased, Nagaraju, was opening the lock of his shop M/s. Venkateswara Agencies when a van bearing No. AP 25 T 4816, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him. As a result, the deceased sustained crush injuries to the head and died on the spot. The mother of the deceased filed O.P.No.677 of 2000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. The wife of the deceased also filed a separate claim petition, O.P.No.45 of 2002, seeking compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of her husband. Before the Tribunal, the insurer denied the manner of accident, age and earnings of the deceased, and contended that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. However, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. By a common award dated 19.10.2006, the Tribunal granted Rs.4,20,000/- to the mother of the deceased and Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife of the deceased.
The mother of the deceased preferred the present appeal not seeking enhancement of her own compensation but challenging the award granted in favour of the wife of the deceased and praying for 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 loss of 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.
Justice M.G. Priyadarsini observed that 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 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 also 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. There is no provision for dismissing the claim petition filed by the 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 High Court referred to several precedents including Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company v. Bhagyashri Gaikwad, Bridget Irene and another v. Dincy Devassy and another, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajni and others, and Gianis W/o. Late Anil Abraham v. Lazar Manjila, all of which support the view that remarriage of a widow cannot be a ground to deny compensation. The Court also observed that the Tribunal had already calibrated the compensation keeping in view the fact of remarriage by awarding loss of contribution only till the date of remarriage and separate amounts under other heads. 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
Case Title: Mukka Laxmi Bai M Lachavva v Neeraja Now and others
Case Number: M.A.C.M.A. No.2946 of 2009
Date of Judgment: 07.03.2025
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 