A widow's right to claim compensation after remarriage is upheld, as dependency remains the crucial factor, and remarriage does not disqualify her entitlement under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the Common Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.2006 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum - I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal”) in O.P.No.677 of 2000 and O.P.No.45 of 2002, the petitioner/claimant in O.P.No.677 of 2000 i.e., mother of the deceased filed the present Appeal to modify the common judgment and decree dated 19.10.2006 and thereby prayed to dismiss the O.P.No.45 of 2002.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the death of her son by name ‘Nagaraju’ in the road traffic accident that occurred on 07.03.2000. The petitioner arraigned the wife of the deceased as respondent No.1, as the wife of the deceased got remarried. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the death of her son is that on 07.03.2000 while the deceased was opening the lock of his shop M/s. Venkateswara Agencies, Husnabad Street, Armoor, a van bearing No. AP 25 T 4816 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘crime vehicle’) driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained crush injuries to head and died on the spot. It is submitted by the petitioner that since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. It is to be observed that even the wife of the deceased i.e., respondent No.1 in the instant case also filed another O.P. No.45 of 2002 seeking compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of her husband i.e., the deceased by showing mother of the deceased as respondent No.3 in the said OP.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.2/owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte and whereas the respondent No.3/insurer of the crime vehicle filed counter denying the petition averments including the manner of the accident, age and earnings of the deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and that claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner in O.P.No.677 of 2000/mother of the deceased, PWs 1 and 2, CWs 1 to 3 were examined apart from exhibiting Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the petitioner in O.P.No.45 of 2002/wife of the deceased, PW1 was examined apart from exhibiting Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of respondents/insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced in either of the cases. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal passed common judgment, wherein the mother of the deceased was awarded Rs.4,20,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded in favour of wife of the deceased. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the wife of the deceased, the mother of the deceased i.e., the appellant/petitioner preferred the present Appeal to modify the common judgment and thereby prayed to dismiss O.P.No.45 of 2002.

7. Heard Sri K. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company and perused the record including t