JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune (for short the Tribunal), the Appellant Insurance Company preferred this Appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

On 15^th May 2010, Sakharam Gaikwad was riding the motorcycle bearing No. MH-14/BD-9975 and deceased Ganesh was a pillion rider on said motorcycle. At the time of incident, Sakharam was crossing Mumbai-Pune road for going towards Kamshet. At the relevant time, the Respondent No.1 drove his rickshaw bearing No. MH-43/C-1989 in rash, excessive and negligent manner and thereby dashed to the motorcycle. Because of dash, Sakharam and deceased fell down on road, sustained multiple injuries. Deceased Ganesh sustained head injury. Ganesh died while taking treatment. The offence was registered against the Respondent No.1 rickshaw driver.

3. The Claimants filed Claim Petition for getting compensation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has passed judgment and order, it is under challenge. It is contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Respondent No.1 drove the offending rickshaw outside the jurisdiction and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the permit. Therefore, the Appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the Claimants.

4. The permit to ply offending rikshaw was for Thane district only. The incident had happened outside Thane district.

5. The learned Counsel further submits that the Claimant No.1-wife of deceased Ganesh remarried after the death of Ganesh. Hence, she is not entitled for the compensation and income of deceased is considered on higher side. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

6. It is contention of learned Counsel for the Respondent- Claimants that the offending rickshaw had permit to drive the rickshaw. No witness is examined by the Appellant to prove that there was breach of terms and conditions of permit before the Tribunal.

7. The learned Counsel further submits that, when Ganesh died, at that time, the Claimant No.1 was widow and thereafter she filed Claim Petition for getting compensation. At the time of death of her husband, she was 19 years old only. Hence her remarriage cannot be a ground to deny compensation to her. The learned Counsel further submits that deceased was getting Rs.10,000/- per month from doing the welding work and from agricultural land. But the Tribunal has considered only Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, requested to dismiss the Appeal.

8. I have heard both learned Counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal). The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,89,754/-.

9. While dealing with issue of breach of permit, the Tribunal has observed that it is settled position that breach of terms and conditions of policy are quite different than the breach of terms and conditions of permit issued by the RTO Authority. The permit was issued for the purpose of plying the rickshaw and giving the service within the District Thane. However, it does not preclude the Opponent No.1 to carry the rickshaw out of the jurisdiction of District Thane. I do not find any infirmity in it. In my view the Appellant’s have not examined any witness to prove that taking offending rickshaw outside the jurisdiction of Thane District was breach of terms of permit, and it amount’s to breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, I do not see merit in the contention of learned Counsel for appellant that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

10. In respect of, issue of remarriage of Claimant No.1, in my view, it appears from record that at the time of death of her husband, she was 19 years old. Thereafter, she filed a Claim Petition for getting compensation, during pendency of the Claim petition she re-married. One cannot expect that for getting compensation of deceased husband, the widow has to remain widow for life time or till getting compensation. Considering her