Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1154 (JHR)

SANJEEDA KHATOON v. SHER AH

2002-11-01

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, H.S.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment : RUSHARAN SHARMA AND HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD the parties. Appellant was wife of Md. Miyajan Ansari, son of md. Sher Ali of village Kundi, District ranchi. Her husband died in a motor accident dated 13. 5. 1989. She along with parents of her deceased husband filed compensation Case No. 82 of 1989 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, lohardaga, which was disposed of by order dated 25. 8. 2000. She is aggrieved by the observation made in the said order that if Sanjeeda Khatoon, widow of the deceased is remarried with another person after the death of her husband, she will not be entitled to get any amount of compensation and in that case entire amount would be received by parents of the deceased. ( 2 ) THERE was a delay of about 8 months in filing the appeal. Hence, I. A. No. 1233 of 2002 at flag b was filed to condone the delay. Show-cause notice-in appeal as well as on condonation application was issued to the respondents on 30. 7. 2002. Thereafter they have appeared. For the reasons stated in the condonation application at flag b delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ( 3 ) MD. Miyajan Ansari was employed as khalasi on the vehicle No. BEN-6116 which met with an accident on 13. 5. 1989. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving. Miyajan Ansari sustained serious injuries. He was brought to Holi family Hospital, Mandar and thereafter he was referred to R. M. C. H. , Ranchi, where he expired in the course of treatment on 20. 5. 1989. He was 20 years old and was earning Rs. 900 per month besides Rs. 250 for fooding. The vehicle in question was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at the relevant time. ( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 1,26,000 payable to the claimants as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 2. 8. 1996 till realisation. The Tribunal directed half of the amount to be paid to the parents and half to the widow of the deceased. However, it was observed that in case widow is remarried with another person, she will not be entitled to get any amount and entire amount of Rs. 8. 1996 till realisation. The Tribunal directed half of the amount to be paid to the parents and half to the widow of the deceased. However, it was observed that in case widow is remarried with another person, she will not be entitled to get any amount and entire amount of Rs. 1,26,000 with interest would be received by parents of the deceased. Mother of the deceased, who was one of the claimants died in the meantime. ( 5 ) THE appellant is a young lady and after death of her first husband Md. Miyajan ansari she has again married with one mustakim of village Kanjiya. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for appellant submitted that merely because appellant is now remarried she cannot be deprived of compensation in this case. In our opinion, after her remarriage if her husband Mustakim is in a posivtion to maintain her, there is no question of her being paid compensation as dependant of deceased Miyajan. It is not her case that her second husband, namely, Mustakim is not in a position to maintain her. So, she is not entitled to get compensation under the Act. However, she remarried Mustakim not immediately after the death of her first husband Miyajan and it appears that during the pendency of compensation case she was married with Mustakim. In such circumstance, keeping in view the agony and mental torture she sustained after sudden death of her young husband till she remarried Mustakim, in our opinion, she is entitled to be compensated and for that a sum of Rs. 26,000 out of the total amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal will be sufficient for her. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned judgment and award are modified to the extent that out of total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,26,000 the appellant will be paid rs. 26,000 only and rest of the amount after death of mother of the deceased will be paid to his father Md. Sher Ali. ( 8 ) WE are informed that Md. Sher Ali, respondent No. 1 has already received an account payee cheque for the entire amount of compensation along with interest issued by the insurance company. He is, therefore, directed to return the said cheque to the insurance company by 14. 11. 2002. Sher Ali. ( 8 ) WE are informed that Md. Sher Ali, respondent No. 1 has already received an account payee cheque for the entire amount of compensation along with interest issued by the insurance company. He is, therefore, directed to return the said cheque to the insurance company by 14. 11. 2002. The insurance company is directed to prepare two separate account payee cheques, one in the name of Sanjeeda Khatoon, appellant for Rs. 26,000 as principal amount of compensation plus interest and another in the name of Md. Sher Ali for Rs. 1,00,000 as principal amount plus interest up to the date on which cheque was already issued earlier. With the aforesaid modification and direction the appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of. --- *** --- .