ORDER
Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Sri Satish Chaturvedi has accepted notice on behalf of Union of India-respondent No. 2.
2. I have heard counsel for petitioner, and Sri Satish Chaturvedi for respondent No. 2. In a pending Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 252 of 2000, the Tribunal has impleaded Smt. Munni Devi, the applicant, the widow of the deceased Sartaj Ali as a party to the proceedings.
3. Petitioner is mother of Late Sartaj Ali. She objected to the application on the ground that Late Sartaj Ali had divorced Munni Devi in the year 1996. In her objections she stated in paragraph 4, that her Late son married seven years ago but did not have any issue. About two years later to the marriage, her son divorced his wife Munni Devi and thereafter he had no relationship with Munni Devi.
4. The Tribunal has allowed the impleadment application with observations that the question of divorce, and the fact whether Munni Devi was legally wedded wife on the date of accident, shall be decided after the evidence is taken.
5. Counsel for petitioner submits that the question as to who is legal representative of the deceased can only be decided by the civil court of competent jurisdiction. He has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Smt. Rukhsana v. Smt. Nazrunnisa. 2001 (19) LCD 48. The decision in fact goes against the proposition. In this case both, widow and mother claimed compensation awarded on the death of Mohd. Jalaluddin, who was employed in Kuwait. The High Court directed them to produce succession certificate and observed that on production of such certificate, the Court before where the claims were pending will determine the share of each claimants. The Supreme Court did not approve the view taken by the High Court and held that compensation is not a debt or security for which a succession certificate may be obtained. It was held that the civil court can only decide as to who are legal representatives and the shares to which they will be entitled, as per personal law applicable to them. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount.
6. In the present case, the question whether Munni Devi was a legally wedded wife on the date of accident, is a question which is incidental to the determination to the dependents who are entitled to the compensation. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not only authorises the claims Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be Just, but also to specify the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid. The remedy is a statutory remedy in Torts. The Tribunal is not restricted to award compensation, only to the legal heirs. It can also award compensation to any person or persons, who were reasonably dependent upon the income or were expected to receive such dependence. Even a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance. In Muslim Personal Law, a divorced wife is also entitled to reasonable and fair, maintenance Daraal Latifi v. U.O.I., (2001) 7 SCC 740. The Tribunal is not required to await or adjourn proceedings for any contest of claims, and thus defeat the very object of speedy determination of compensation to the dependents of the victims of accidents. We are not concerned at this stage about the apportionment of shares. The Tribunal has rightly held that the question whether Smt. Munni Devi is widow of Sartaj All is to be decided only after taking evidence. I do not find any error of law in the order passed by the Tribunal.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.