Remarriage does not deprive a widow of compensation entitlement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

S. Vimala, J.

1. Is the widow who is expected by the society to live a life of austerity and abnegation, on remarriage is entitled to compensation in respect of death of her deceased husband is the issue to be decided. The first respondent is the claimant who filed the petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- in respect of death of her husband, impleading her father-in-law as the respondent, who is the sixth respondent herein. The claims Tribunal gave a finding that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of TATA Sumo Car and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,28,000/- as compensation.

2. Challenging the finding on negligence, the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

3. The appellant is the insurer of the TATA SUMO Car, of which the second respondent is the owner. The fourth respondent is the registered owner of the Enfield motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-22-E-5462, which was driven by the deceased and the fifth respondent is the insurer of the motor cycle. The sixth respondent is the father of the deceased, who died during the pendency of the appeal.

4. As against the claim made for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, the Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs. 5,28,000/-. This award is directed to be paid by the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and the insurer of the Tata Sumo car. As against the finding on negligence liability and quantum of compensation, the insurance company has filed this appeal on the following grounds;

1. The accident was not on account of negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo Car, but on account of the negligence of the deceased himself.

2. The quantum of compensation awarded is also disproportionate and the multiplier of 22 ought not to have been taken by the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the re-marriage of the claimant during the pendency of the claim petition.

4. So far as the contention regarding the negligence/contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the contention.

5. The tribunal has relied upon Ex.p1/first information report, wherein it has been mentioned that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo Car. The driver concerned has admitted the rash and negligent driving and has paid the fine amount. A copy of the judgment of the criminal Court has been filed Ex.P7. The Tribunal has taken into consideration, the rough sketch (Ex.P2), Observation Mahazar(Ex.P3) and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report (Ex.P4) and has come to a reasonable conclusion that the accident is only on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo Car. Admission is always the best piece of evidence. The insurance company has not chosen to examine any witness to disprove the contention of the claimant. Therefore, the contention regarding contributory negligence cannot be accepted.

6. The deceased had been a highly educated person. The deceased also seems to be a person interested in sports activities and he had been a State player. The deceased was aged 38 at the time of accident. The longevity of the deceased need not be doubted because his father had been alive at the age of 80. His monthly income was Rs. 4,000/- at the time of accident. The order of appointment and the salary slip would go to show that the deceased had been earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The lower court has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and adopted the multiplier of 22 and arrived at the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency at Rs. 5,28,000/-. out of Rs. 5,28,000/-, Rs. 4,00,000/- has been awarded to