JUDGMENT
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. Through this appeal, the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raisen, dated 30.6.97 in Claim Case No. 21 of 1997, is challenged.
2. The claimants are father and brother of deceased Awadh Narayan (22), who died in the motor accident on 21.7.1985, when jeep No. MPD 8524 hit Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (M.P.S.R.T.C.) bus No. MPH 891. Allegation is that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently otherwise the accident would not have taken place. The deceased left behind father, 2 brothers and Shardabai (widow). It is stated that the deceased was grain merchant earning Rs. 1,000 per month.
3. The respondents state that the accident was not caused by M.P.S.R.T.C. bus, it was caused by the driver of the jeep. Accordingly, it is submitted that the claim be dismissed.
4. After recording of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the jeep was responsible for causing the accident. However, compensation of Rs. 15,000 has been awarded on the ground that Shardabai, wife of deceased remarried after the accident. There is no dispute about taking place of accident, causing thereof by the jeep on the basis of evidence in the case and finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal.
5. The question for determination is whether the compensation awarded is just and whether the wife of the deceased is also entitled to compensation, after remarriage without being party in this case. The deceased was earning Rs. 1,000 per month, therefore, after making deduction towards personal expenses to the extent of 1/3rd, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 650, yearly Rs. 7,800, multiplied by 17, compensation works out to (Rs. 7,800 x 17) Rs. 1,32,600 plus Rs. 16,500 (Rs. 7,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 consortium to wife, Rs. 2,500 for loss to estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses), total compensation comes out to Rs. 1,49,100 (rupees one lakh forty-nine thousand one hundred).
6. The Claims Tribunal seems to have awarded Rs. 15,000 on the ground that father of the deceased has died and other claimants are brothers of the deceased. This assumption is not correct. Brothers of the deceased were quite young at the time of accident, therefore, they could be dependent on the deceased. Moreover, Shardabai is wife of the deceased. It is submitted that since she remarried after the accident, therefore, she was not entitled for compensation. There is no force in this plea. Shardabai remarried after the accident. This happened because her husband died, otherwise she could not have married again. The accident took place while she was wife of the deceased. Her entitlement to compensation is to be seen on the date of accident. On this date, she had not remarried. Entitlement of widow, remarrying after the death of husband in accident has been examined by this court exhaustively in Pramila v. Sarvar Khan, 2003 ACJ 542 (MP). It has been held that simply because widow remarries after the accident, she cannot be denied compensation on the death of her husband. Therefore, Shardabai is also held entitled to compensation.
7. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, submits that Shardabai is not party to this case. May not be, one or some male legal heir(s) or legal representative(s) can file claim petition for others. Therefore, his contention is rejected.
8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the award is modified. The claimants Harnarayan, Laxminarayan and Shardabai (widow) are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,49,100 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of application till payment, Owner and driver of jeep jointly and severally responsible, payable by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., within two months, distributable as under:
(1) Harnarayan 25 per cent
(2) Laxminarayan 25 per cent
(3) Shardabai (widow) 50 per cent
The Claims Tribunal, Raisen, will inform Shardabai about this decision and pay compensation to the extent mentioned above.