The Bombay High Court recently held that remarriage of a widow cannot be a ground for denying her compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Single-judge Justice SG Dige turned down the argument of the insurance company that a widow if she remarries, should be denied compensation for the death of her first husband.
The Court held in the order passed on March 3 that “One cannot expect that for getting the compensation of deceased husband, the widow has to remain a widow for a lifetime or till getting compensation.
Considering her age, and at the time of the accident, she was the wife of the deceased, this is sufficient ground that she is entitled to compensation. Moreover, after the death of the husband remarriage can’t a taboo to get compensation.”
Therefore, the bench was seized of a plea filed by the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company challenging the order of a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) where the firm was held liable to compensate the respondent-wife of one Ganesh, who died in an accident in May 2010.
As per the facts of the case, the woman’s husband Ganesh was traveling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider when the two-wheeler hit an auto rickshaw which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He died while he was being treated.
At the time of the death of her husband, the claimant-wife was 19 years old. Thereafter, she filed a claim petition for compensation.
During the pendency of the petition, she re-married.
Therefore, the insurance company highlighted this as a ground to deny the compensation.
It also contended that it can’t be held liable to pay the compensation as the autorickshaw was only permitted to ply within the Thane district.
However, Justice Dige rejected both arguments.
With these observations, the bench dismissed the company’s plea stating “In my view, the company has not examined any witness to prove that taking the offending rickshaw outside the jurisdiction of Thane district was a breach of terms of the permit, and it amounts to a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, I do not see merit in the contention that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.”
