Skip to main content

Widow who has remarried entitled to relief, Bombay HC says

Just because a woman has remarried does not disentitle her from receiving compensation for the accidental death of her first husband, the Bombay high court has ruled. Six years after a Vile Parle resident Sandeep Purandare died when a dumper hit his bike on the Western Express Highway, a division bench of Justice S C Dharmadhikari and Justice R Y Ganoo ordered that 20 per cent of the compensation amount of over Rs 67 lakh will go to his widow Sunita (name changed), who has since remarried and looks after the couple's child.

"Nothing has been pointed out to us in law which would disable Sunita to claim compensation only because she has remarried during the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal," said the judges, adding, "The law postulates grant of just compensation to the claimants. That she was married to deceased Sandip and had given birth to a girl child is undisputed. That she has lost the company of Sandip and will have to take care of the child even after remarriage ought to have therefore weighed with the Tribunal while awarding compensation."

The court ordered that a large part of the compensation amount to be paid by the insurance company and the owner of the dumper -- 60 per cent -- would go to the couple's 11-year-old daughter. "We hold that she would require (a) substantial amount for her education, marriage and for day-to-day maintenance. It is possible that she would require (a) substantial amount for her education such as education in medical/engineering faculty," said the judges, ordering that her share of the compensation be deposited in a nationalised bank.

The interest would be paid to Sunita to take care of her daughter's expenses and withdraw some part for higher education. The remaining amount would be paid to the daughter when she attains adulthood. The court ordered that the remaining 20 per cent of the compensation should go to Sandip's mother.

Sandip, who used to work with L&T, was riding his bike on the Western Express Highway on July 5, 2007 when a dumper truck hit him at the Gold Spot junction, killing him. The accidents tribunal awarded the family compensation of Rs 30 lakh. The family filed an appeal before the high court. The court agreed the calculations were not done properly and the rise in income if Sandip had been alive, too, was not taken into account. The HC increased the compensation amount to Rs 66.98 lakh, along with interest, and also ordered that the family should be paid an additional amount of Rs 30,000 as litigation costs.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-19/india/45376440_1_compensation-amount-motor-accidents-claims-tribunal-sandip

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even