IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4090 of 2003 Between: Likki Sujatha .. Appellant AND Mohd. Chand & 6 others .. Respondents AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.16 of 2004 Between: Likki Sujatha .. Appellant AND Mohd. Chand & 7 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.4090 of 2003 & 16 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals are involving the same parties and the same subject matter and are hence, being decided together. While C.M.A. No.16 of 2004 is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.1293 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated 25.03.2003, C.M.A. No.4090 of 2003 is directed against the award in O.P.No.760 of 2001, on the file of the same Tribunal, dated 22.03.2002. 2. Likki Sathish Kumar, aged about 25 years and claimed to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a Salesman in a Kirana shop at Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, died in a motor vehicle accident on 10.04.2001. Likki Sathish Kumar was going on his motor cycle at about 8.45 p.m. on that day and near the culvert after crossing Jeedivagu on his way to Kamalapur, he hit a stationed lorry parked on the road and died on the spot. Mangapet Police registered Crime No.21 of 2001 and the parents and two brothers of Likki Sathish Kumar made a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- in O.P.No.760 of 2001 against the owner and insurer of the lorry and the insurer of the motor cycle. 3. The owner of the lorry did not contest the claim, while the insurer who is the same for both the vehicles contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and the excessive compensation claimed cannot be granted. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants for compensation. The Tribunal examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-10 during the enquiry. 5. In the impugned award, dated 22.03.2002, the Tribunal concluded firstly that the accident took place only on account of negligence on the part of the lorry driver, who parked his lorry in the middle of the road without any signals of caution. The Tribunal also concluded that the deceased might have been aged 25 years as mentioned in Ex.A-2-Inquest Report for which there was no other evidence. The Tribunal fixed the contribution of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month or Rs.24,000/- per annum to the family after deducting 1/3rd from his monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 with reference to the age of the mother of the deceased who was 50 years and assessed the loss of contribution at Rs.2,60,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded compensation towards funeral expenses at Rs.2,000/-, loss of estate at Rs.25,000/- and granted a total compensation of Rs.2,87,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. As both the brothers were majors, their claim was rejected and the compensation awarded was directed to be shared equally by the parents. 6. The appellant in C.M.A. No.4090 of 2003 is the wife of the deceased, who filed the appeal with permission/leave contending that she is the natural claimant for payment of compensation and no award could have been passed in favour of the parents alone in O.P.No.760 of 2001. 7. O.P.No.1293 of 2001 was the claim petition by the wife alone impleading the respondents and petitioners in O.P.No.760 of 2001 as respondents and claiming a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- jointly and severally from respondents 1 to 3. The contest by the respondents 1 to 3 was identical, while the parents and the brothers contested the claim contending that while the appellant was married to the deceased on 11.03.2001, the deceased died on 10.04.2001. They claimed that there was a Panchayat on 09.09.2001 before the caste elders in which a notarized Memorandum of Compromise was entered into under which the appellant has to be paid Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque and Rs.3,000/- by way of cash and the appellant agreed not to claim any amount or any further rights from the husband’s family. The appellant who expressed her intention to remarry in the Memorandum of Compromise itself lost her status as wife and is not entitled to claim any compensation. 8. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, age and income of the deceased and relinquishment of the right of the appellant due to the compromise. 9. The Tribunal examined P.W.1 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and B-1 to B-3 during the enquiry. 10. The Tribunal concluded reiterating its findings in O.P.No.760 of 2001 that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent in causing the accident and it further noted grant of Rs.2,87,000/- as compensation in O.P.No.760 of 2001. The Tribunal further referred to the admitted Panchayat between the parties before caste elders after the death of the deceased and the admission of the appellant about her signature on Ex.B-1-Memorandum of Compromise. It also referred to her further admission that she has to be paid Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque and Rs.3,000/- by way of cash under a notarized Memorandum of Compromise which was entered into by the appellant and though she denied the suggestion about her remarriage, the Tribunal referred to the claims of the father of the deceased, R.W.1 about the appellant being remarried for which Exs.B-2 and B-3 are the printed invitation cards by both sides. The Tribunal accepted that the two marriage cards show that the appellant remarried after the death of the deceased and still it considered that the appellant is not disentitled to the share of his compensation merely because of the remarriage. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for the appellant. 11. The appellant in C.M.A. No.16 of 2004 contended that she is entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and the other members of the family ought not to have been given any share in the compensation. 12. Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Harihar Rao, learned counsel for other claimants and Sri R. Venkat Rao and Sri P. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the insurer are heard. 13. All the other issues about the claims decided by the Tribunal by two awards are not the subject matter of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. The only dispute that arises for adjudication in these two appeals is about the right of the widow to a major share in or the entire compensation. It is admitted that the finding of the Tribunal about the appellant getting remarried also cannot be disputed in the face of the positive evidence of R.W.1, corroborated by the printed invitation cards of the second marriage marked as Exs.B-2 and B-3 in O.P.No.1293 of 2001. 14. The principles governing such a fact situation was the subject of a number of precedents cited before the Court by Sri V. Harihar Rao, learned counsel for the parents of the deceased. I n ANJU MUKHI AND ANOTHER VS. SATISH KUMAR BHATIA AND OTHERS[1], after exhaustive reference to the case law on the subject, it was held that though the widow after remarriage does not lose her entitlement to claim the compensation as a dependent, the compensation for loss of dependency can be ascertained only during the period of her widowhood. The widow was held entitled to compensation from the date of death of her husband till her remarriage after which she ceased to be the legal representative of the deceased. 15. Similarly, in COL.K.S. DHALIWAL AND ANOTHER VS. JAGDEEP RIAR AND OTHERS[2], it was held that in case of the remarriage of the widow after the death of her husband, the loss of dependency has to be computed till remarriage. 16. Similarly, in MAKBOOL AHMED AND OTHERS VS. BHURA LAL AND OTHERS[3], where the widow remarried after 40 months, the dependency was held to end on such remarriage and compensation should be awarded only covering the period prior to the remarriage. I n CHANDAN AND ANOTHER VS. KANWARLAL AND ANOTHER[4] also, a similar principle was reiterated and so was the decision in STATE OF ORISSA VS. ARCHANA NAYAK AND OTHERS[5], wherein it was reiterated that a widow after remarriage cannot be said to continue as the legal representative of the first husband and the widow cannot claim compensation on the basis of loss of dependency after her remarriage. 17. The principles appear unexceptionable and in view of the second marriage of the appellant being probablised by Exs.B-2 and B-3-Invitation cards, grant of 1/6th of the total compensation to her out of the compensation assessed to be payable on the death of her first husband appears to answer reasonably, justly and adequately the need to compensate her for the period between the death of her first husband and her remarriage. In fact, the Tribunal appeared to have been more liberal towards the appellant in this regard and the impugned awards, therefore, did not suffer from any vice that requires to be corrected in these appeals. 18. Consequently, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals should fail and are, accordingly, dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 8th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.4090 of 2003 & 16 of 2004 Date: 8th February, 2011 KL [1] 1998 ACJ 400 [2] 1986 ACJ 1073 [3] 1986 ACJ 219 [4] 1989 ACJ 816 [5] 1987 ACJ 772