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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...