Heard Sri K. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the v. Krishna Rao, learned Standing

Judgment

Aggrieved by the Common Judgment and Decree dated

19.10.2006 (hereinafter wili be referred as .impugrred judgment,) passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter u'ill be referred as "Tribunal") in O.p.No.67Z of 2OOO amd O.P.No.45 of 2OO2, the petitioner/claimant in O.p.No.677 of 2000 i.e., mother of the deceased hled the present Appeal to modiS the common judgment and decree dated 19.10.2O06 and thereby prayed to dismiss t}le O.p.No.45 of 2OO2.

2. For tht: sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brref facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioner l-rled claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. I5,OO,OO0 /- from the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the death of her son by name 'I.{agaraju' in the road traffic accident t_hat 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 f MCPJ of her son is ttrat on O7.O3.2OOO while the deceased was opening the lock of his shop M/ s. Venkateswara Agencies, Husnabad Street, Armoor, a van bearing No. Ap 25 T 4g16 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicleJ driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained crr.sh 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.l in the instant case also filed another O.p. No.45 of 2OO2 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 petiLion averments including the manner of the accident, age and earnings of the deceased. It was further \ \ 3 MCIJ contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having vaiid 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 2OO0/mother of the deceased, pWs I and 2, CWs 1 to 3 were examined apart from exhibiting Exs.Al to A1O. On behalf of the petitioner in O.p.No. 45 of 2OO2 /wife of the deceased, PWI was examined apart from exhibiting Exs.Al 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.4,2O,0OO/- and Rs.2,O0,00O/_ 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/pet.itioner preferred the present Appeal to modify the common judgment and thereby prayed to dismiss O.p.No.4S of

2002. / f I MCPJ

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 tJle grounds of Appeal.

8. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.l 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 7 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.Al (FIR), A2 (charge sheet), A3 (inquest panchanama), ,{4 (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 oniy 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 2OOO 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,OO,0O0/- except loss of consortium ald loss of income. / , \ \ 5 M{CMANo2960f2009

10. In llfco Tokio General Insurance Company v. Bhag5rashri Gaikwadr the High Court of Bombay observed that one cannot t:xpect that for getting compensation of deceased husband, thc 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 aaother 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 applicotion for compensation aising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of section 165 mag be made - (a) by the person uho hos sustsined the it1ury; or (lr) bA the ouner of tlrc propertA; or (c) where death has resulted. from the acctdent, bg all or any of the legal representatiu<rs of*rc deccase-d; or ------" I 2023 Livelaw 1Bom1 tzo , Special kave to Appea.l (C) Nos-9844/2O20, dated 06.04.2021 \ I I{CPJ MAcM,tNo.2946 .t 2oo9

12. A perusal of the above provision does not say that remarriage after the husband's death does not automatically disqualiSr 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 claimalt, 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 Ilsurance Company Limited v. Rajni and otherss the High Court of Panjab and Haryana observed as under: "In Gianis W/o. Late Anil Abraham us. Lqzar Manjila S/o. Jog Monjila. 2020(3) ILR (Kerda) 457, uthile consideing the qtestion of entitlement of the uidou of the deceased, in pursuonce of lrcr re-marriage, it utas obserued, as herein giuen:- "22- It is to be noted that the lst appellant uould not haue thoughl of a remarriage, but for the untimelg death of her tusband. It tuas not a remarriage on account of diuorce, The Court hrls to consider th.e psgclalogical lrurdles that the widott) . F^O-?fi-20L4 lO&M), Decided on 17.11.2023 I I,z iICPJ uill face on account of remarriage. The societg is changinglt The age oLd concept of a remarried. tuidout antting off all relations uith the famitg of tLer ex-tatsband, is becoming a story of the pa.st. Foct retnat$ that the lst respondent u)as dependent on the deceased and uould hque remained so, but for the demise of her turcband mrlsequent to the arcident. The death h(rs tndeed resulted in loss o/ dependency. Afi.er the deatlt of hasband a tuidout mag go for ernploAment and become self- dependeti or may opt for remanriage. Either uag, the loss of dependerrcg consequent to the death of the husband does not cease mereLA because she hns remarried or became self-rel1ant. The word dependencg and legal represent(tttue, therefore, should receiue a pragmatic interpretatiort White computing compensatiott for depend.encg of a utidotl) on the death oJ' her husbantd under Section 166of tlle Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, her rentarriaqe shall not be a decisiue 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 shoulcl not be punished by depriving her of the compensation lor the death of her husband. In the State of Tripura ar d auother v. Smt. Bela Dey (Dasl and another4, the High Court of Gauhati held that a u/idow, who remarries during pendency of a claim petition, is entitled to compensation. The relevant portion of ttre said decision is extracted hereunder: "Neith.er in sectton 165 nor in section 166, there is anA restiction/ bar prohibiting or disqtalifging a usidoul, who remanies duing the pendencA of o claim petitioq from gelting compen so,tiort for the death of Irer tusband. In uieu of the provisions laid doutn in section 166, as the tuidow of tte r.leceased becomes tte legal representative of the deceased, o nn zoro (ttoc) rso (e"u) 't I L I I MCP., MACMANo 2946 or2oo9 immediatelg on the death of lLer husband. in o uehiculor accident, her ight to seek compensation und.er the M.V Ad accrues in her fauour. Ttere is no pinciple of timited hetr and there is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act that r order to get compensation the uidout is required to remain unmarried. As he nght to claim compen-sation accrues immedialelg on the death of the husband, in the absence of arg contrary prouisiot\ slrc cannot be diuested from her statutory right to get such compensation as provided bg the statute onlg on the ground of subsequent remanriage, to t hich she is taufultg entitled. There can be no dispute in undersiari.ding that ajter the death of a husband, in our societg, the liJe of th.e widortt cipples abnormallg qnd slrc is subjected to all kinds oJ indignittes, contpelling her to toke stelter in her parents house and if ter parents are not aiive and euen if theg ore o)iue, sometimes d.ue to their poor economic condition tfug can hardlg look afier such widotu. It tuilt not be appropriate to expect a ulidow, more partictlarly, a young ladg, tuho loses her husbantd at the earlg parl of her bfe to continue to liue the rest of her life without the compang of a male member. That apar1, in the absence of a sufficient fnancial support and social security, such goung widotu nny get exposed to ang kind of exploitation. The onlg uaA to saue herself front such indignitg, miseies, and hardship etc., is to take the compang of a male bg enterin-g into a second matriage and therebg pauing the uag to lead a comfortable and respectable life in the societA. The optiort for remaniage being legallg permissible, the uidow should be encouraged for remarriage. Therefore, she should not be punished by depiuing her from the contpensation for tle deoth of her Lutsband. Refusat to giue compensation onlA on the ground of remarriage uould otnount to discouragirtg the tuidotu remorriage sgstem, uhich system is good for the healtlt of ciuilized societg. A widow, if sle can find a suitable husband, euert during the pendencg of her claim petition, cannot be expected to wqit to etlter into remarriage till the disposal of her ctaim petitiort The pendencg of the claint petition and delag in such disposal cannot be her fault. Fro?t the perspectiue of a welfare antd civilized society, the remarriage oJ the uJidow cannot be discouraged in ang manner. Therefore, tltere cannot be antg impedinrcttt or restiction compelling a uidow not to remorry till the disposal of her clainr petition. Admittedty, for the welfare and betterment of the society, the remarrlage of the uidou.t is benefi.cial. Therefore, there shouLd be rcetiiue for such remn-rrtage touards betterment of the society. Moreouer, her ight to get the compensation accrued to her much pior to her remarriage. Irt fact, she uanted to realize the compensatiort, uhich she eanted prior to such remarriage, What she eamed under the statute qt a partiaiar poittt of time can't be d.enied on the ground that there uas delag in disposal of legal proceedtng. Tf.e M.V Act does not prouide ang prouision, bg tuhich such ighl can be to*en awag due to the subsequent rema.rriage, that too afier filing the claim petition- Tle loss both mental and ftnancial caused to her due to death of her husband cannot be suitablV compensated bg the subsequent mantage- Euen afi.er her remarriage, a widoru generally does not enjolt tle same stqtus a l benefit of decent life as she used to get duing the life-time of her deceased husband. In the present cose in hnnd, th.ere is nothing on record. to find tha| afier her re-morriage, the claimant utidow used to get tlle sarne qmount of finonciol benefit uthich uas auailable to ler duing the life-time of her deceased ta8barld. There is no euidence regatding tf.e fiitanctal condition of her second fuisband. A uida' 9 mag enter into lhe second maniage due to uarious reosons L,rd such remarriage mag tot be o suitable substitute for all purposes including fnancial supporl. Slrc mag not get the pecuniary support, tuhich she used to get from her deceased furband Therefore, it cannot be leld tLwt the peaniary loss caused due to death of her deceased Latsband uas compensaled bg the subsequent matriage ond as such slrc can't get tlle compensation as cLaimed for."

15. In the instant case, the wife of thd deceased has filed O.P.No.272 of 2OO0 on the file of learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Adilabad but the mother of the deceased filed a transfer petition before t1.e High Court seeking transfer of O.P.No.272 of 2OOO from the file of learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Adilabad to the hle 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 2OOO was translerred to the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad and renumbered as O.P.No.4S of 2OO2. Thus, it is clear that lhe wife of the deceased got remarried during the pendency of the claim petition.

16. Furthr:r, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,OO,0OO/- to ttre wife of the deceased i.e., Rs.52,O7Ol- towards loss of contribution for eleven months i.e., till tfie date of remarriage, Rs.5,00O/- towards consortium, Rs.42,93O/- towards love and affection ard Rs.1,00,O0O/- towards mental 10 MCPJ u^cM,Lno.2916 of2oo9 agony. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount 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 2OOO got married within 10 months after the death of the deceased and also begotten child, she is not entitled for compensation of Rs.2,O0,0OO/- except loss of consortium and loss of income' more particularly, when the wife of the deceased already receivedRs.8,50,O0O/-,Rs'15,000/-(FDAmount)'Stulasof gold as per the agreement dated O5'12'2OOO towards full and hnal settlement. It is to be seen that the said alleged agreement dated 05.12.200O is not placed either before the learned TribunalorbeforethisCourt.Thus,thisCourtisnotinclinedto 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 said emoluments as per the said alleged agreement' As stated supra, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amount ) t -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 pcr 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.S,OOO/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.52,O7O/- 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 fina.rrcial 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 \ \ I I T I I I l2 McPr, rf,rcM^.Xo 2916 0f 2000 the subsequent marriage. Even after her remarriage, a widow generally does not enjoy the same status arrd 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 frled 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 justihcation 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 ttre well reasoned I I l3 MCPJ

19. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There Jhall be no order as to costs. Miscellancous petitions, if any, pending shall stand I closed //TRUE COPYII sdrP'cH gAuc+BHgBll+HiA ,/ SECTION OFFICER ;i;;qlfl,#fr ,try{,$Fsr$i,Hl;1,,;il,}irrrr"'"".'"" To I HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2946 of 2009 -I HE S14 (oB c o 12l r.il,I 2W ( a t E Pt$ t .t / 5 g DISMISSED IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAB FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF I/IARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLA NEOUS APPEAL No: 2946 OF 2009 Between: Mukka Laxmi Bai @ M.Lachavva, Wo. Lachaiah, aged 67 years,_Occ: Household R/o.H. No. 1 -7-1 05, Gandhi Road, Armoor, Nizamabad District, A. P. ...APPELLANT/3.d RESPON DENT AND 1 Neeraja, Now Wo. Harish Kumar Kottawar, formerly W/o. Mukka Nagaraju R/o. H.No. 1 -1 2-1 64/S,Opp.Mahavir Bhavan, Raisatya Colony, Adilabad - A.P. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 2 D.Bhagawath Rao, S/o. D. Lachanna Owner of Lorry R/o.1-12-56, Small Bazar, Armoor, Nizamabad District, A.P.

3. United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, rep by Branch Manager O/o. Ambedkar Road, Armoor, Nizmabad District A.P. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 and 3 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act,, against the Judgment and decree made in O.P.NO.45 ot 2002 dated.19.10.2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. K SARALA MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI V. KRISHNA RAO, Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and None Appeared for the Respondent 1 & 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: d ismissed;

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal beand herebyis 2. Thal save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sha stands confirmed in 3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. all other respects: and Sd/- P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r- 1-.\-'- SECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- r Additional District 2. Two CD Copres Judge, at Nizamabad. To )/ HIGH COURT DATED:0710t312025 DECREE MACMA.No.2946 of 2009 DISMISSET) 3 ( -,b I