A widow’s entitlement to compensation for loss of dependency is not negated by post-death remarriage or employment status; the focus remains on the loss due to the husband's death.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J

‘Does a widow’s post death remarriage and employment status impact her entitlement to compensation for loss of dependency in a death claim?’

2. This appeal is filed by the claimant/widow of the deceased in O.P (MV) No.852 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein was the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

3. According to the claimant, on 16.06.2009 at about 08.15 am, while the deceased was riding the motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-02/Y 2881, a bus bearing registration No.KL-26-5310 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimant, being the widow of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The first and second respondent/driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy, denying negligence and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed as well as the relationship of the claimant with the deceased. Before the tribunal, PW1 and RW1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20 and Exts.X1 and X2 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.4,60,800/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, claimant, who is the legal heir of the deceased, has come up in appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent/insurer.

6. As regards the compensation for loss of dependency, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal had taken Rs.2,150/- as the income of the deceased, after deducting 1/4th from his monthly salary of Rs.8,599/-, and only awarded compensation under the head loss of estate. It was submitted that the Tribunal did not grant any compensation towards loss of dependency on the ground that the claim petitioner wife was working at the time of accident and a non-dependent spouse of the deceased who remarried a panchayat employee subsequently, is not entitled to compensation under the head loss of dependency, which is absolutely erroneous. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurer on the other hand argued that the wife was having a job at the time of accident and hence she was not financially dependent on the husband. Further, since she remarried,during the pendency of the claim petition, the dependency shifted to her new husband and thus she was not entitled for any dependency compensation.

7. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides. Admittedly, the claimant was the wife of the deceased at the time of accident. Though the accident was in the year 2009, the claim petition was filed in the year 2011, while the petitioner was unmarried. Thereafter in 2013 during examination before the tribunal as PW1, she had deposed that she remarried a Panchayat Employee. The tribunal has found that she, being employed and remarried, is not entitled for dependency compensation. That does not however exclude her from claiming compensation. The material date for deciding the compensation is the date of accident/death. Any subsequent act cannot deprive her from compensation. Though she had a job at the time of accident, that cannot be a reason to deprive her from dependency compensation because, the claim petitioner was also in her young age at the time of accident and death of the husband has resulted into loss of dependency. The appellant had to remarry due to the untimely death of her husband. If