A widow who remarries after the death of her husband in a motor accident is entitled to compensation only till the date of her remarriage.

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. This is an appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded in M.C.C. No. 1 of 1989 vide award dated 1.9.1992 passed by Vth Additional Judge to the court of District Judge, Bhopal.

2. The facts relevant to this appeal are these. One Avinash Mukhi, aged about 30 years, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 was employed as a Medical Representative with UNICHEM Laboratories Limited, Bombay and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,312/- per month plus Rs. 25/- per day as city allowance, died on 10.2.1985 iri a motor accident. He left behind the widow, appellant No. 1 aged about 29 years and minor son aged about 3 years and father Harichand Mukhi aged about 75 years, who filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on 4.4.1985 and claimed compensation of Rs. 12,33,000/- for the death of Avinash Mukhi caused in the motor accident. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal the appellant No. 1 widow, remarried on 18.8.1985 with Sunil Mukhi, younger brother of the deceased. Father, applicant No. 3 also died during the pendency of the proceedings, accordingly his name was deleted from the array of the applicants in the cause title vide order of the Tribunal dated 30.7.1991.

3. Appellant No. 1 in her statement stated that her in-laws got her remarried with her brother-in-law (devar) for her safety and security. Her second husband is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month which is not sufficient for her livelihood. In para 7 of her cross-examination, she admitted that she is happy with her marital life. The Tribunal on the evidence adduced by the parties and material on record, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The Tribunal after determining the dependency for the appellant No. 2 minor son as Rs. 600 per month, yearly Rs. 7,200/-, by applying the multiplier of 15, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till payment to the appellant No. 2. No compensation was awarded to appellant No. 1 because of her remarriage.

4. Mr. Lalwani, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the remarriage of the widow will not disentitle her to claim the compensation. That would only mean that the law discourages remarriage of a widow. Even on facts the second husband, brother of the deceased is getting much less amount as pay than the deceased. Therefore, the dependency ought to have been determined for the appellant No. 1 after deducting the earnings of the second husband in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in assessing the compensation in a case of motor accident. Counsel cited a short noted decision of this Court in Pamarlal v. Urmila 1982 MPLJ SN 27; Hariram v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation 1994 ACJ 1094 (MP) and Sobha Jain v. Bihar State Tribal Co-op. Development Corporation Ltd. 1983 ACJ 327 (Patna).

5. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned Counsel for the insurance company, contended that a widow, who remarries after the death of her husband in a motor accident would only be entitled to compensation till the date of her remarriage. After remarriage she does not remain a dependant or even the legal representative of the deceased to claim compensation. Compensation is to be assessed on the dependency. Counsel cited Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manjusri Raha 1968 ACJ 1 (MP); Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Chandravati AIR 1983 All 174; Makbool Ahmed v. Bhura Lal 1986 ACJ 219 (Rajasthan); State of Orissa v. Archana Nayak 1987 ACJ 772 (Orissa); Chandan v. Kanwarlal 1989 ACJ 816 (Delhi); and Man Inderjit Singh v. Sardar Singh 1985 ACJ 413 (P&H).

6. The present case is of a Hindu widow who has remarried after the death of her husband caused in a motor accident. True by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 the property possessed by a female Hindu of her husband vested in her cannot be dive