Re-marriage of widow not ground to deny compensation under Motor Vehicle Act: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court recently held that the remarriage of a widow cannot be a ground to deny her compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The argument of the insurance company that a widow, if she remarries, should be denied compensation for the death of her first husband was rejected by a single-Judge Bench of Justice S G Dice.

"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 age, and at the time of accident, she was wife of deceased, is sufficient ground that she is entitled for the compensation. Moreover after death of husband remarriage can not be a taboo to get a compensation," the court said in its order dated March 3.

The Bench was hearing a plea filed by Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, which challenged the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT), by which the firm was held liable to compensate the respondent wife of one Ganesh, who had died in an accident in 2010.

Ganesh was travelling on a motor cycle as a pillion rider, when the two wheeler hit an auto rickshaw which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He died in hospital.

At the time of the death, the wife was just 19-years old. She then filed a plea seeking compensation and the during the pendency of which she got re-married.

The insurance company cited her re-marriage as a ground to deny her the compensation.

It was also contended that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation as the autorickshaw was only permitted to ply within the Thane district.

Justice Dige rejected both the arguments and said:

"In my view the company 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 that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy."

While making these observations, the Bench dismissed the plea of the insurance firm.