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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...