Re-marriage of a widow does not negate her entitlement to compensation for loss due to her husband's death, as dependency includes emotional aspects beyond financial support.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J.

These are two appeals filed by the rival parties to assail the Award dated 22.01.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, thereby, granting compensation, on account of death of Jogender, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 03.03.2010.

2. On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, vide impugned Award, learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of school bus bearing registration No.HR-47A-3924, driven by Respondent-Manjeet, as a result whereof, Jogender, who was occupant of the ill-fated motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-43A-2840, had died.

3. So far as the fact of accident and the manner of the taking place of the same as well as the liability, so fastened upon driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, is concerned, the same, as such, is not disputed.

4. However, FAO-2917-2014 has been filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company, only assailing the Award on the quantum of compensation as well as entitlement of Rajni, widow of deceased Jogender, to any compensation, on account of her re-marriage.

5. FAO-8330-2014 has been filed by the parents of the deceased, thereby, asserting denial of compensation to Rajni, widow of the deceased, who got re-married and further seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to them.

6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the insurance company has assiduously submitted that learned Tribunal had erroneously worked upon the compensation, which is to the extent of Rs. 18,19,992/-. Even, the interest granted is on higher side. Furthermore, it is submitted that Rajni claimant No.1, who was widow of deceased Jogender, after the death of her husband, had performed second marriage on 20.11.2013 and as such, she is not entitled to any compensation. Besides the same, also it is submitted that the father of the deceased namely Suraj Bhan is also Ex-serviceman and therefore, he was not dependent upon the deceased. Moreover, he had three sons, as admitted by him and also has 3 acres of agricultural land and therefore, he cannot in any manner, be stated to be dependent upon the deceased. Considering the same, it is submitted that it is mother only, who is entitled to compensation. Being one dependent, therefore, deduction has to be to the extent of one-half instead of one-third, while working upon the dependency.

7. Beside the aforesaid, it is also submitted that deceased was a government employee and he died in harness, as a result whereof, under the Haryana Compassionate to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, as per the affidavit furnished by Rajni, she was also receiving amount of compensation, which ought to be deducted.

8. To so substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the insurance company relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma and others, 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 569 and also National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and others, 2020 (1) RCR (Civil) 694.

9. Even, learned counsel for the appellants (parents of the deceased) has assiduously submitted that in pursuance of death of Jogender in a motor vehicular accident, Rajni, daughter-in-law of the appellants, got re-married, as a result whereof, she is not entitled to any compensation, on account of death of her husband. Moreover, it is submitted that appellants have not received any amount under the Haryana Compassionate to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. In fact, Rajni was receiving certain amount, under the abovesaid Rules and therefore, this amount also has to be taken into consideration, while denying the compensation to Rajni. Also further, it is submitted that the compensation, ought to be granted to Suraj Bhan, father of the deceased, even though, he was an Ex-serviceman and the extent of compensation granted to him, ought to be enhanced.

10. Further, Rajni, who has a