IMPORTANT POINTS
After the death of husband, a widow may go for employment and become self-dependent or may opt for remarriage. Either way, the loss of dependency consequent to the death of the husband does not cease merely because she has remarried or became self-reliant. The word dependency and legal representative, therefore, should receive a pragmatic interpretation. While computing compensation for dependency of a widow on the death of her husband under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, her remarriage shall not be a decisive factor.

JUDGMENT :

The question inter alia arising in this appeal is whether the entitlement of a widow for compensation consequent to the death of her husband in a road traffic accident, will diminish due to her remarriage during the pendency of the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The 1st appellant is the wife and 2nd and 3rd appellants are the parents of late Anil Abraham. Anil Abraham, who was employed in Saudi Arabia and was earning Rs.25,000/-per month, was on leave. On 08.01.2002, while he was riding a motorcycle through Ernakulam-Palarivattom road, a car driven by its owner, took a U-turn and knocked down Anil Abraham. Anil Abraham sustained serious injuries. Though treated for injuries, he succumbed to the injuries, on 21.01.2002. Thereupon, the appellants filed OP(MV) No.581/2002 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha seeking a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-

3. The 1st respondent-owner of the car contested the OP. The 1st respondent stated that accident was solely due to the negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased Anil Abraham. The compensation claimed is exorbitantly excessive. The vehicle was covered by an insurance policy of the 2nd respondent-insurer. Therefore, the 1st respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The 2nd respondent-insurer stated that as the policy was issued in favour of the 3rd respondent in the OP(MV), it is not bound to indemnify the 1st respondent. The policy holder did not report the accident to the insurer and consequently, policy condition is violated. The 2nd respondent also stated that the accident was due to the negligent driving by the deceased Anil Abraham. The compensation amount claimed is high. The 2nd respondent-insurer further stated that after filing the OP(MV), the 1st appellant married another person and is living with him. There is therefore cessation of dependency and 1st appellant is not entitled to any amount as compensation for the death of her former husband.

5. The appellants produced Exts.A1 to A27 documents. The 2nd respondent produced Exts.B1 and B2 documents. The appellants examined PWs 1 to 3. One Rev. Fr. C.K. Issac was examined as RW1 by the respondent.

6. Appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, who was the driver of the car. The Tribunal accordingly passed an Award allowing a total compensation of Rs.7,64,500/- under the following counts:-

The 1st appellant was held entitled to 25%, whereas appellants 2 and 3 were held entitled to 30% and 45% respectively, of the compensation amount. The Tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of the OP(MV). The 2nd respondent-insurer was directed to make the payment.

7. The 2nd appellant-father of the deceased passed away during the pendency of this MACA and his surviving children were impleaded in the appeal as additional appellants 4 and 5.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased was a Diploma holder in Engineering and an Instrument Technician working in a Gulf country. In 2002, the year of accident, the deceased was 29 years old. It is the argument of the counsel for the appellants that in spite of sufficient proof of the monthly income of Rs.25,000/-of the deceased Anil Abraham, the Tribunal fixed notional monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The appellants had produced bank remittanc