case law on Motor accident claim act
parikshit rajvaidya
(Querist) 16 May 2008
This query is : Resolved
pls provide me high court or suprime court's judgement under Motor Accident claim act on the following point
whether a woman get claim of her husbands death ? if she has got married during the pendency of claim case in the trail court ?
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 16 May 2008
The following judgment should help you
[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
Manorama Alias Monica
v
V. Mohammad and Others
K. RAMANNA
03 Jun 2006
BENCH
K. RAMANNA
COMPARATIVE CITATIONS
2006 (6) KarLJ 11,
CASES REFERRED TO
Jagar Nath and Another v State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [1998 ACJ 908]
Bhanwar Lal and Others v Munshi Ram and Others [1988 ACJ 283]
State of Orissa v Archana Nayak and Others [1987 ACJ 772]
H.T. Bhandary v Muniyamm [1985 ILR(Kar) 2337]
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited v Shrimati Chandrawati and Others [1983 AIR(All) 174]
Jaimal Singh and Another v Jawala Devi and Others [1976 AIR(Del) 127]
ACTS REFERRED
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923[s. 2(1)(d)(i)]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939[s. 110-A]
Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956[s. 21]
CASE NO
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 576 of 2001 (Mv).
LAWYERS
Km. Nataraj, A.C. Vinayaraj, B.V. Nagaratna, A.N. Krishnaswamy
JUDGMENT TEXT
The Judgment was delivered by : K RAMANNA
This appeal is filed by the wife of late P. Shetty against the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 1683 of 1994 by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Mangalore, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant in M.V.C. No. 1683 of 1994 on the ground that within one year of the death of her husband she married to some other person and therefore she is not entitled to any compensation. But the claim petition in M.V.C. No. 12 of 1994 filed by the parents of the deceased P. Shetty was allowed in part awarding total compensation of Rs. 52, 500/- with interest at 6% per annum. Therefore, the appellant in M.V.C. No. 1683 of 1994 has come up with this appeal.
2.Heard the learned Counsels for the appellant and the second respondent-insurer.
3. It is an admitted fact that late P. Shetty was the husband of the appellant herein. P. Shetty died in a motor vehicle accident on 14-11-1994 at 3.15 p.m. which took place between the vehicle i.e., moped bearing Registration No. KA-19/E-3358 and lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19/4079 at Bendoor Road, Mangalore. Therefore, the appellant being the wife of P. Shetty filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 3, 00, 000/- with interest.
4.During the course of the argument the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has totally erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant when the marriage of the appellant with the deceased Prakash Shetty is not disputed. As a matter of right the appellant is entitled to compensation as she was a dependent. Further it is contended that the appellant got remarried but the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation for the loss of dependency till her remarriage but her claim petition came to be dismissed without proper application of the evidence. In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied on several decisions. In the decision in the case of Jagar Nath and Another v State of Himachal Pradesh and Others[1998 ACJ 908 (H.P.)] wherein the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that:
"Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 2(1)(d)(i) -Dependent - Widow - Remarriage - Whether remarriage of the widow of a workman disentitles her from getting compensation -Held, no eligibility is seen at the time of death of the workman and subsequent events like remarriage have no bearing".
In another decision in the case of Bhanwar Lal and Others v Munshi Ram and Others[1988 ACJ 283 (Raj.)] wherein Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, held that:
"Quantum - Fatal accident - Principles of assessment -Remarriage - Whether amount of dependency of other claimants be reduced on account of remarriage of widow - Held: no; widow remarriage is a matter of satisfaction for all concerned but other members of the family should not suffer on this count; deductions may act as impediment in path of encouragement to widow remarriage; multiplier applied fo
parikshit rajvaidya
(Querist) 16 May 2008
any other judjement, eaither of suprime court or of m p high court .
parikshit rajvaidya
(Querist) 16 May 2008
any other judgement of m p high court or of suprime court on same topic abovementioned .
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 16 May 2008
you can look judgments referred in this case. I have not come across any SC judgment on the law point
