The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of remarriage on a widow's entitlement to compensation in a motor accident claim case.

S. SAMVATSAR, J. :- This appeal is filed by one of the claimants i.e. claimant No.1 Shrimati Vimla challenging the award dated 1-12-2000 passed by III Additional Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 2/95 whereby the Claims Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 2,30,000/- in favour of the present appellant and respondents 6, 7 and 8.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4-12-1994 at about 6.00 in the evening deceased Chhote was going on his cycle. At that time, bus No. MP 07 B-944 which was coming from his back side dashed against him and Chhote died due to the injuries sustained by him. It is alleged that Chhote was earning Rs. 50/- per day. He was a labour aged 20 years. He was survived by appellant who is the widow, respondent No. 6 father, respondent No. 7 mother and respondent No. 8 younger sister. All the four persons filed an application for compensation.

3. Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was 22 years of age and was earning Rs. 1500/- per month and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Claims Tribunal further apportioned the said amount in four parts and awarded Rs. One lac to the present appellant, Rs. 50000/- each to the respondents 6 and 7 who are father and mother respectively and Rs. 20000/- to respondent No. 8 who is younger sister of the deceased.

4. Being aggrieved by this apportionment, the claimant widow has preferred this appeal. Respondents 6 to 8 have also filed cross objection challenging the said apportionment. Hence, only question which is to be decided by this Court is the question of apportionment.

5. It is alleged by only 6 to 8 that the present appellant has remarried after the death of Chhote and therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation. Even assuming that she is entitled to compensation yet she will get only 1/4th share in the compensation and the Claims Tribunal Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. one lac to the appellant out of Rs. 2,20,000/- . While the case of the present appellant is that she being Class I heir, she alone is entitled for the entire compensation and so long as Class I heir is alive. Class II heirs do not get any right to receive the compensation.

6. During the pendency of this appeal, Respondents 6 to 8 have also filed an application under Section XLI, Rule 27 CPC which is marked as I.AS.9636/04. Contention about remarriage was raised by these respondents before the Claims Tribunal, but in the absence of any evidence the Claims Tribunal has found that it is not proved that the appellant has remarried after the death of Chhotesingh. Along with the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. before this Court the Respondents 6 to 8 have filed a Panchanama stating that the appellant has married with one Kishorilal S/o Kok Singh on 22-11-2004. In reply to this application, the present appellant has denied the allegations about the remarriage. She has stated that she was driven out of her house by her in-laws after the death of her husband and she was compelled to leave her husband's house. She has admitted that she is residing with one Kishorilal as Kishorilal is the husband of her cousin Suman. His wife Suman had died and her child is very young and therefore, under the compelling circumstances, she is residing with Kishorilal to look after the child.

7. As regards the question of remarriage is concerned. The trial Court has found that the allegations of remarriage are not proved. Before this Court also, Respondents 6 to 8 have alleged that the appellant had remarried but this fact is denied by the present appellant. However, we think that even without going into the question of remarriage, this Court can examine the impact of remarriage of a widow after the death of her husband for receiving the compensation.

8. Counsel for the appellant Shrimati Meena Singhal to support her argument has relied upon number of decisions. First judgment is in the case of Anjali Kevlaramani (Smt.) v. Keshavram, 2000 (2) MPWN 130 : (2