Bombay High Court holds remarriage of widow not ground to deny compensation under Motor Vehicles Act

Bombay High Court holds remarriage of widow not ground to deny compensation under Motor Vehicles Act

The insurance company had denied paying the woman on the pretext that she had married again

The Bombay High Court has held that the remarriage of a widow cannot be a ground for denying her compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company vs Bhagyashri Gaikwad case, the single-judge bench of Justice SG Dige turned down the argument of the insurance company that if a widow remarried, she should be denied compensation for the death of her first husband.

The court held, "One cannot expect that for getting the compensation of the deceased husband, the woman has to remain a widow for a lifetime or till getting the compensation. Considering her age, and at the time of the accident, she was the wife of the deceased, it is sufficient ground that she is entitled to compensation. Moreover, after the death of the husband, remarriage cannot be a taboo to get compensation.”

Iffco Tokio had filed a plea before the court challenging the order of a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) which held the company liable to compensate the respondent, the wife of an individual Ganesh, who died in an accident in May 2010.

Ganesh was travelling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider when an autorickshaw driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the vehicle. Ganesh was taken to the hospital, but could not be saved.

At the time of her husband’s death, the claimant-wife was 19 years old. She filed a claim petition for compensation. However, during pendency of the petition, she re-married.

The insurance company highlighted this as a ground to deny the compensation to the woman. It also contended that it was not liable to pay the compensation, as the autorickshaw was only permitted to ply within Thane district.

However, the court dismissed the plea and rejected both arguments of the company.

Justice Dige stated, "The company has not examined any witness to prove that taking the offending rickshaw outside the jurisdiction of the Thane district was a breach of terms of the permit, and amounted to a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, I do not see merit in the contention that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy."

While advocates Vikrant Purashurami and Roma Naik appeared for the appellant, the respondents were represented by advocate Uday B Nighot.