The main legal principle established in the judgment is that under the Motor Vehicles Act, a widow would not be entitled to compensation after remarriage, as the purpose of compensation is to address the loss of income, which no longer exists after remarriage.

Order

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court reported in Anju Mukhi v. Satish Kumar Bhatia, (1998) 1 MPLJ 25 dated 13-12-1996.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: on 10-2-1985 an accident took place wherein one Avinash Mukhi aged about 30 years was killed. The appellants i.e. the wife and minor child of the deceased filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Pending the matter before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the first appellant remarried. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,08,000 to both the appellants negating the contention that on remarriage the first appellant was not entitled to compensation.

3. In the appeal before the High Court, the High Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,50,000 but has held that the first appellant would only be entitled to compensation till the date of remarriage. On that basis the High Court awarded only Rs. 6000 to the first appellant and the balance was awarded to the minor child.

4. In this appeal, we find that there is no challenge to the quantum of compensation save and except that it has been claimed that a wrong multiplier has been applied. We do not see any substance in the challenge to the multiplier applied. The multiplier of 15 which has been then applied, cannot be said to be unreasonable.

5. The only challenge is to the finding that on remarriage the widow loses the right to claim compensation. It is to be seen that the main purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act is to award compensation for loss of income on the death of a person. On remarriage there is no longer a loss of income. Now the dependency has shifted on to the new husband. Therefore, we are in agreement with the High Court that after remarriage a widow would not be entitled to any compensation.

6. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The appeal stands dismissed.

7. There will be no order as to costs.