S. Samvatsar, J.
1. This appeal is filed by one of the claimants i.e. claimant No. 1 Shrimati Vimla challenging the award dated 1-12-2000 passed by III Additional Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 2/95 whereby the Claims Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 2,30,000/- in favour of the present appellant and respondents 6, 7 and 8.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4-12-1994 at about 6.00 in the evening deceased Chhote was going on his cycle. At that time, bus No. MP 07 B-944 which was coming from his back side dashed against him and Chhote died due to the injuries sustained by him. It is alleged that Chhote was earning Rs. 50/- per day. He was a labour aged 20 years. He was survived by appellant who is the widow, respondent No. 6 father, respondent No. 7 mother and respondent No. 8 younger sister. All the four persons filed an application for compensation.
3. Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was 22 years of age and was earning Rs. 1500/- per month and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Claims Tribunal further apportioned the said amount in four parts and awarded Rs. One lac to the present appellant, Rs. 50000/- each to the respondents 6 and 7 who are father and mother respectively and Rs. 20000/- to respondent No. 8 who is younger sister of the deceased.
4. Being aggrieved by this apportionment, the claimant widow has preferred this appeal. Respondents 6 to 8 have also filed cross objection challenging the said apportionment. Hence, only question which is to be decided by this Court is the question of apportionment.
5. It is alleged by only 6 to 8 that the present appellant has remarried after the death of Chhote and therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation. Even assuming that she is entitled to compensation yet she will get only l/4th share in the compensation and the Claims Tribunal Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. one lac to the appellant out of Rs. 2,20,000/-. While the case of the present appellant is that she being Class I heir, she alone is entitled for the entire compensation and so long as Class I heir is alive. Class II heirs do not get any right to receive the compensation.
6. During the pendency of this appeal, Respondents 6 to 8 have also filed an application under Section XLI, Rule 27 CPC which is marked as LAS.9636/04. Contention about remarriage was raised by these respondents before the Claims Tribunal, but in the absence of any evidence the Claims Tribunal has found that it is not proved that the appellant has remarried after the death of Chhotesingh. Along with the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. before this Court the Respondents 6 to 8 have filed a Panchanama stating that the appellant has married with one Kishorilal S/o Kok Singh on 22-11-2004. In reply to this application, the present appellant has denied the allegations about the remarriage. She has stated that she was driven out of her house by her in-laws after the death of her husband and she was compelled to leave her husband's house. She has admitted that she is residing with one Kishorilal as Kishorilal is the husband of her cousin Suman. His wife Suman had died and her child is very young and therefore, under the compelling circumstances, she is residing with Kishorilal to look after the child.
7. As regards the question of remarriage is concerned. The trial Court has found that the allegations of remarriage are not proved. Before this Court also, Respondents 6 to 8 have alleged that the appellant had remarried but this fact is denied by the present appellant. However, we think that even without going into the question of remarriage, this Court can examine the impact of remarriage of a widow after the death of her husband for receiving the compensation.
8. Counsel for the appellant Shrimati Meena Singhal to support her argument has relied upon number of decisions. First judgment is in the case of Anjali Kevlaramani (Smt.) v. Keshavram 2000 (2) MPWN 130 : 2000 AIHC 4574. In that case, this Court has held that mother and widow of the deceased are Class I heirs and they are entitled to get the compensation. So long as Class I heirs are alive. Class II heirs will not get any right to compensation. In that case, this Court has apportioned the compensation between the mother and the widow in proportion of 20% and 80% i.e. 20% of mother and 80% of widow.
9. Another judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Sanjay Jain and Ors. was relied upon. In that case also, Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court has considered the definition of legal representatives. In that case, the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh has held that if the mother is living separately from the deceased with her husband and being maintained by him, she is not entitled to get compensation, for the death of her son, but awarded a sum of Rs. 20000/- towards love, care and affection of her son. Remaining amount of compensation which was more than 9,81,0960/- (sic) was awarded to the widow and minor children of the deceased.
10. In the case of Govind Rao and Anr. v. Surjit Singh Mahal alias Bhola Babu and Ors. : 1998(46)BLJR1425 Patna High Court has considered the meaning of 'legal Representatives'. In that case the Patna High Court has dismissed the claim of the parents and awarded entire amount of compensation to the widow as she was dependant on the deceased.
11. Next judgment is in the case of Pramila and Ors. v. Sarvar Khan and Ors. in which Division Bench of this Court while considering the impact of remarriage has held that the widow is entitled for full compensation on higher and broader prospective. National policy allows woman equal status with man, in all spheres of activities. Both are given equal rights. Government and non-government organisations emphasise remarriage of a widow. When a man can remarry, why cannot a woman
12. Next judgment is again a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mansingh and Ors. v. Banne and Ors. in which similar view is taken by the Division Bench of this Court. In the case of Neetu Jain and Ors. v. Sitaram and Brothers and Ors. again the same principles have been reiterated. In that case, it was held that when father and mother of the claimant are not dependant on the deceased, they are not entitled to compensation. In' Halkibai and Anr. v. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. this Court has laid down that legal representatives means Class I heirs and when Class I heirs are available. Class II heirs are not entitled to compensation.
13. Thus as per the appellant, the impact of remarriage of a widow does not disentitle her from getting the compensation.
14. In reply to this argument, counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anju Mukhi and Anr. v. Satish Kumar Bhatia and Ors. . In this case, Division Bench has held that after remarriage the widow is not entitled to get compensation as she is not dependant on her husband. This judgment is considered by the subsequent Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramila and others (supra). Division Bench while deciding the case of Anju Mukhi (supra) has not at all considered the fact that the word 'dependant' does not find place in Section 110 of the old Motor Vehicles Act as well as in Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The principles of Fatal Accidents Act are now not available to the claim petition decided under the Motor Vehicles Act. This view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of G.S.R.T.C. Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai : [1987]3SCR404 . Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is provided that any of the legal representatives can file the claim petition. Widow even after remarriage continues to be the legal representative of her husband as there is no provision under the Hindu Succession Act or any other law which lays down that after remarriage she does not continue to be the legal representative. The right of succession accrues immediately on the death of husband and in the absence of any provision she cannot be divested from the property vested in her due to remarriage.
It is understandable that life of a widow, after the death of her husband, in the family cripples abnormally. Generally, she is subjected to all kinds of indignities, compelling her to leave and fall back on parents where she is taken to be an eye-sore by the families of her brothers, particularly when parents are not alive, and even if they are alive they can hardly look after her due to old age. With this background, it is considered necessary that a widow marries as early as possible. Therefore, in a case she has done so, her claim for compensation cannot be defeated by remarriage. It would be highly improper to compel her to lead a life of a widow till she receives the compensation.
There is one more aspect of the matter. It is well known fact that in our society, the life of a widow becomes miserable. If she has no financial support she has to survive on the mercy of other relations which expose her to any kind of exploitation or to adopt immoral ways for her survival. Instead of doing that, if she remarries then that can give her a way to lead her life in more respectable manner. This option is legally permissible and therefore, should be encouraged and the widow should not be punished by depriving her from compensation for the death of her husband.
15. Counsel for the respondents also urged that for filing a claim petition, even brothers and sisters are entitled to file the claim petition. For this purpose he has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of G.S.R.T.C. Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai : [1987]3SCR404 . However, facts of the said case are distinguishable. In that case, the brother had filed claim petition as Class I heir. This is not the situation in the present case.
16. Thus, we hold that after the death of deceased Chhote, present appellant Shrimati Vimla and mother of the deceased i.e. respondent No. 7 Shrimati Santo alone are entitled for getting the compensation.
17. As regards apportionment is concerned, it will dependant on facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the widow who is examined as AW 3 has specifically stated that she was living with her husband at the time of the accident and her in-laws and other members were residing separately. This evidence is not rebutted by other claimants. Moreover, the remaining life span of the widow is more than that of a mother. Whenever a claim for compensation is filed by the parents alone the lesser multiplier is applicable. Considering this fact, we hold that the compensation be apportioned between the widow and the mother of the deceased as 70% and 30% i.e. widow shall be entitled to compensation to 70% and 30% amount of the award shall be payable to the mother of the deceased.
18. Thus, this appeal stands partly allowed and the cross objections stand dismissed without any order as to costs.