Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim petition filed by the parents and widow of the deceased Rameshbhai Kalabhai Kour. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Rajkot partly allowed the petition and awarded Rs.4,13,680/- with 9% interest. The appellants, who were the parents of the deceased, appealed on the sole ground that the widow had remarried during the pendency of the claim petition and therefore was not entitled to compensation. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellants' counsel relied on Anju Mukhi & Anr. v. Satish Kumar Bhatia & Ors. to argue that remarriage disentitles the widow. The insurance company's counsel left the matter to the court. The Court examined the record and noted that the widow was the legally wedded wife at the time of the accident. It held that the right to compensation accrues on the date of the accident and remarriage during pendency does not affect that right. The Court distinguished the cited precedent and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's award.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Remarriage of Widow - Entitlement to Compensation - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The issue was whether a widow who remarried during the pendency of the claim petition is entitled to compensation. The Court held that the right to compensation accrues on the date of the accident and remarriage does not extinguish that right. The appeal challenging the award on this ground was dismissed. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a widow who remarries during the pendency of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is entitled to compensation?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 07.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Rajkot in MACP No.545/2007 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Remarriage of widow during pendency of claim petition does not disentitle her to compensation
- Right to compensation accrues on date of accident
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 Section 166
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 849
R/First Appeal No. 3174 of 2012
Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani for the appellants, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar for respondent no.3
Kalabhai @ Bhayabhai Khimabhai Kour & Anr.
Sama Husen Kasambhai & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the award on the ground that the widow who remarried during pendency is not entitled to compensation.
Filing Reason
Appellants aggrieved by the award of compensation to the widow who remarried during pendency of the claim petition.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Rajkot in MACP No.545/2007 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.4,13,680/- with 9% interest.
Issues
Whether a widow who remarries during the pendency of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is entitled to compensation?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the widow remarried during pendency and thus is not entitled to compensation, relying on Anju Mukhi & Anr. v. Satish Kumar Bhatia & Ors.
Respondent no.3/insurance company submitted that appropriate order may be passed.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act accrues on the date of the accident. Remarriage of the widow during the pendency of the claim petition does not extinguish that right. The widow remains entitled to compensation as per the award.
Judgment Excerpts
The right to compensation accrues on the date of the accident and remarriage during the pendency of the claim petition does not extinguish that right.
Procedural History
The claim petition (MACP No.545/2007) was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Rajkot. The Tribunal partly allowed the petition on 07.12.2011. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present first appeal before the High Court of Gujarat.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
