JUDGMENT :- Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. This is an appeal by an Insurance Company - original N. A. No.3.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows One Girish Chandak was travelling in a Jeep No.MH-29/C-498 as a gratuitous passenger on 22/2/1999. The said Jeep was hit by Bus No.MH-27/ A-9096 which came from the opposite direction. It is alleged that the said bus was being driven rashly and negligently. Due to the dash given to the Jeep, Girish suffered serious injuries to vital organs and he died. N.A.No.1 Shakil was driver of the bus while N.A.No.2 Salim is the owner of the bus and the said bus was insured with N.A.No.3. It is contended that Girish was 30 years of age and was running an electronic instrument shop. He was earning around Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. The application was opposed by the present appellant/Insurance Company alone. It denied that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving and contended that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep and petition was, therefore, bad for non-joinder of owner of the Jeep and the driver. The Insurance Company also contended that there was a breach of condition of policy and therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation.

5. The learned judge of the Tribunal found that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.3,42,000/-. One of the grounds raised at the time of the argument before the Tribunal was that the claimant no.1 has remarried and therefore, she was not entitled to compensation. The learned judge had negatived the contention. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

6. I have heard Shri A.H.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Shri. B. N. Mohta, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Shri. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, raised only one ground. He contends that while deciding the claim of the compensation, the learned judge of the Tribunal should have applied a lesser multiplier since claimant no.1 has remarried. It appears from the judgment of the Tribunal that it is not disputed that claimant no.1 Mona has remarried during pendency of the petition before the Tribunal. The date of the marriage is, however, not clear. Shri. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the claim should have been determined by applying a multiplier of maximum 4 or 5 since claimant no. 1 has remarried within 4-5 years of the accident. The learned judge of the Tribunal has negatived the contention of the appellant that simply because claimant no. 1 has remarried she is not disentitled to claim the compensation nor that can be the ground to apply a lesser multiplier. Shri. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that claimant no.1 becomes disentitled to claim compensation because she no more remains member of the family and the widow and a dependent. Here, one has to bear in mind that claim arises out of tort. As soon as the tort is committed, the person against whom such tort is committed becomes entitled to a compensation. Therefore, if on the date the tort was committed, the claimant was entitled to a certain compensation, any subsequent act cannot deprive him or her of the said entitlement. As soon as the cause of action arises, the person in whose favour it so arises can prosecute the same. The provision in the form of Section 166 of the Act is a social Legislation. The same, therefore, must be interpreted to further the objective of the said section. The law does not prohibit a widow from remarrying. Claimant no. 1 was only 25 years of age when her husband died. To my mind, it would be too much of Insurance Company to expect that, if the claimant wants to have compensation, she should not remarry and suffer miseries. In fact, a legislati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document