Can Widow Of Accident Victim Be Denied Compensation On Ground Of Remarriage? Bombay HC Says This

MUMBAI: Remarriage of a widow can’t be a cause to disclaim compensation to her beneath the Motor Vehicles Act for the dying of her husband in a highway accident, the Bombay High Court has stated whereas dismissing an insurance coverage firm’s petition. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company had filed the petition within the excessive court docket, difficult the order of a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT), which had directed the corporate to pay compensation to the lady, whose husband was killed in a highway accident in 2010. A single-judge bench of Justice S G Dige on March 3 determined the enchantment of the insurance coverage firm.

Its detailed order was made obtainable not too long ago. The counsel for the agency had submitted that because the claimant, the spouse of deceased Ganesh, remarried after his dying, she isn’t entitled to get compensation. The court docket, nonetheless, held that one can’t anticipate that for getting compensation for the dying of her husband, she has to stay a widow for all times or until she will get the payout. 

The court docket famous that it seems from the report that on the time of the dying of her husband, the lady was 19 years outdated. Considering her age and the truth that she was the spouse of the deceased on the time of the accident is ample floor for her to get compensation, it stated. “Moreover, after the death of a husband, remarriage cannot be a taboo to get compensation,” the court docket held. 

The lady’s husband had met with an accident in May 2010 when he was on a motorbike as a pillion rider. When the bike was crossing the Mumbai-Pune freeway and heading in direction of Kamshet, an autorickshaw rammed into the two-wheeler, resulting in Ganesh’s dying. The agency had contended that it may’t be held liable to pay the compensation because the autorickshaw was solely permitted to ply inside Thane district. 

However, the decide stated, “I do not find any infirmity in it. In my view, the appellants have not examined any witness to prove that taking the offending rickshaw outside the jurisdiction of Thane district was a breach of the terms of permit, and it amounts to breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy.” “Hence, I do not see merit in the contention of learned counsel for appellant that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy,” Justice Dige stated whereas dismissing the enchantment.