A widow retains the right to claim compensation for her husband's death under the Motor Vehicles Act, even after remarriage, acknowledging her status as a legal heir.

1. This appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act') is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.2.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No. 194 of 1994.

2. By the said judgment, a compensation amounting to Rs. 4,80,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants w.e.f. 26.8.1994.

3. On 24.12.1992 at about 1045 hours, while Sukumar Das (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' ), who was husband of the claimant No. 1 and son of the claimant No. 2, was travelling in vehicle No. TR 01-0315, sustained injury due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle and firing of the extremist. Deceased Sukumar Das was brought to the G.B. Hospital for treatment and he succumbed to the injuries on 11.1.1993. Accordingly, the claimants, i.e., the widow and the mother of the deceased aforesaid preferred a claim under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. It was claimed that the income of the deceased, who was 42 years, was Rs. 6,000 per month. The claim was made against the State of Tripura represented by the Chief Secretary and the Director of Fisheries, Government of Tripura, who were made party respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The said respondents contested the claim by filing written statement. Denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the contesting respondents denied their liability to pay the compensation as claimed for. The claimants examined three witnesses, whereas the respondent side examined one defence witness. The maintainability of the claim was also challenged on the ground that the claimant No. 1, i.e., the widow, having undergone remarriage was not entitled to get any compensation.

4. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, came to the finding that the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. The learned Member also held that due to the alleged remarriage, the claimant No. 1 could not be deprived of her right to get the compensation.

5. As the deceased was drawing salary at the rate of Rs. 5,740 per month, learned Member assessed the loss of income at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month and calculated total amount at Rs. 4,68,000 by using the multiplier of 13. An amount of Rs. 10,000 being the expenditure towards the medical treatment and another amount of Rs. 2,000 being funeral expenses were also awarded and the total compensation was assessed at Rs. 4,80,000. The said amount was awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent w.e.f. 26.8.1994.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellants have come up with the present appeal.

7. I have heard Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. Mr. P. Datta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has attacked the impugned judgment and order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, according to Mr. P. Datta, the award of compensation was towards the higher side and secondly, the respondent No. 1, having remarried after the death of the deceased, was not entitled to get the compensation. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, refuting the said argument advanc