ORDER
1. This is an appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded in M.C.C. No. 1/89 vide award dated 1-9-1992 passed by Vth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Bhopal.
2. The facts relevant to this appeal are these. One Avinash Mukhi, aged about 30 years, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 was employed as a Medical Representative with UNICHEM Laboratories Limited, Bombay, and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,312/- per month plus Rs. 25/- per day as City allowance, died on 10-2-1985 in a motor accident. He left behind the widow, appellant No. 1 aged about 29 years and minor son aged about 3 years and father Shri Harichand Mukhi aged about 75 years, who filed an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on 4-4-1985 and claimed compensation of Rs. 12,33,000/- for the death of Avinash Mukhi caused in the motor accident. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal the appellant No. 1 widow, remarried on 18-8-1985 with Sunil Mukhi, younger brother of the deceased. Father, applicant No. 3 also died during the pendency of the proceedings accordingly his name was deleted from the array of the applicants in the cause title vide order of the Tribunal dated 30th July, 1991.
3. Appellant No. 1 in her statement stated that her in-laws got her remarried with her brother-in-law (Devar) for her safety and security. Her second husband is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month which is not sufficient for her livelihood. In paragraph 7 of her cross-examination, she admitted that she is happy with her marital life. The Tribunal on the evidence adduced by the parties, and material on record, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The Tribunal after determining the dependency for the appellant No. 2 minor son as Rs. 600/- per month, yearly Rs. 7,200/- by applying the multiplier of 15, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the application till payment to appellant No. 2. No compensation was awarded to appellant No. 1 because of her remarriage.
4. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the remarriage of the widow will not disentitle her to claim the compensation. That would only mean that the law discourages remarriage of a widow. Even on facts the second husband, brother of the deceased is getting much less amount as pay than the deceased. Therefore, the dependency ought to have been determined for the appellant No. 1 after deducting the earnings of the second husband in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in assessing the compensation in a case of motor accident. Counsel cited a short noted decision of this Court in case of Pamarlal v. Urmila, 1982 MPLJ Short Note 27, Hariram v. Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, 1994 ACJ 1094 (MP) and Sobha Jain v. Bihar State Tribal Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi, AIR 1983 Pat. 39.
5. Shri Sanjay Agarwal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, contended that a widow, who remarries after the death of her husband in a motor accident would only be entitled to the compensation till the date of her remarriage. After remarriage she does not remain a dependent or even the legal representative of the deceased to claim compensation. Compensation is to be assessed on the dependency. Counsel cited Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manju Shri Raha, 1967 MPLJ 972, 1968 JLJ 189, 1968 ACJ 1 (MP), Oriental Fire and Gen. Insurance Co. v. Smt. Chandravati, AIR 1983 All. 174, Makbool Ahmed v. Bhura Lal, 1986 ACJ 219 (Raj.), State of Orissa v. Archana Nayak, 1987 ACJ 772 (Ori.), Chandan v. Kanwarlal, 1989 ACJ 816 (Delhi), and Man Inderjeet Singh v. Sardar Singh, 1985 ACJ 413 (P&H).
6. The present case is of a Hindu widow who has remarried after the death of her husband caused in a motor accident. True by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the property possessed by a female Hindu of her husband vested in her cannot be divested, that is, once the widow acquires the absolute right over the property, it would not be divested from her on her remarriage. But in a case where the dependency is to be determined, she would certainly cease to be the legal representative/dependent of her first husband after her remarriage as would be evident from Section 21(iii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as she does not remain a dependent and such widow loses her right to be maintained. Under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 on a decree being passed for divorce or for judicial separation against a wife and permanent alimony is ordered such wife on her remarriage loses her entitlement to maintenance. When a wife cannot claim financial contribution from her husband on her remarriage, on the same reasoning the widow cannot claim compensation on the basis of loss of dependency after her remarriage. Therefore, to maintain an application to claim compensation for the death of her husband, she must not only be widow at the time of the death of her husband but she should also continue as such to be the legal representative of the deceased husband until the final decision.
7. A Division Bench of this Court in Manjula Devi’s case (supra) considered the question that the widow who remarried within a short time after the death of her husband would be entitled for compensation, the Court observed that her loss of dependency can be ascertained only during the period of her widowhood when she remained widow.
8. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case or Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Chandravati (supra) has observed that a widow who remarried after the death of her husband in the motor accident would not be entitled to claim compensation on an application under Section 110-A of the Act.
9. A Division Bench of Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Archana Naik (supra) after considering the meaning of legal representative used in Section 110-A of the Act and the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the decision referred, observed that a widow would be entitled to compensation from the date of death of her husband till her remarriage as thereafter she ceases to be legal representative of the deceased husband.
10. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Man Inderjeel Singh v. Sardar Singh (supra) Delhi High Court in Chandan v. Kanwarlal (supra) and Rajasthan High Court in Makbool Ahmed v. Bhura Lal (supra) have taken the same view.
11. The decision rendered in Hariram v. Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation (supra) learned Single Judge dealt with a case under the Workmen’s Compensation Act while the decision in Pamarlal v. Urmila (supra), learned Single Judge did not refer to the Division Bench decision in Manjula Devi’s case (supra). Therefore, it cannot be said to be a binding precedent which, in our opinion, does not express the correct view.
12. The decision of Patna High Court in case of Sohha Jain v. Bihar State Tribal Cooperative Development Corporation Ltd. Ranchi (supra) also has taken the contrary view to the Division Bench decision in Manjula Devi’s case (supra). Therefore, we respectfully do not concur with the said view.
13. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the appellant No. 1 would be entitled to compensation only for a period from the date of accident that is 10-2-1985, till 18-8-1985, that is, for a period of about six months 8 days which can be easily calculated and estimated as Rs. 6,000/- taking into account the earnings of the deceased and the dependency of the widow. The contention that the second husband earns less and the marriage was performed for the purposes of safety and security, therefore, the dependency should be assessed accordingly, in our opinion, cannot be accepted as the widow after her remarriage lost her entitlement to claim compensation as a dependent.
14. As to the compensation awarded to the son who was aged about 3 years at the time of death of his father, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 15; but the dependency estimated, in our opinion, was on lower side which should be not less than Rs. 800 per month, yearly Rs. 9,600/-. Applying the multiplier of 15 the compensation would come to Rs. 1,44,000/- which the appellant No. 2 would be entitled. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of application till payment. Accordingly the respondent Company shall deposit the said amount less the amount already deposited by it within a period of 3 months from today failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum. On deposit Rs. 6,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum shall be disbursed to the appellant No. 1 and rest shall be disbursed to appellant No. 2 keeping in mind the guidelines laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sussama Thomas, 1994 MPLJ 520 (SC), AIR 1994 SC 1632 and Lilaben Udesingh Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 608.
15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified as indicated herein above. The appellants shall get the costs of this appeal. Counsel fee Rs. 750/- if precertified.