Narayan Sutradhar VsKhirmohan Sutradhar

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—This appeal has been admitted only on the ground of apportionment.

The short question involved in this appeal is whether the husband could have been granted less compensation only on account of the fact that he had remarried.

This appeal arises out of the award dated 24.05.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 5, West Tripura, Agartala whereby he disposed of two claim petitions one filed by the parents of deceased Tulshi Rani Sutradhar being T.S(MAC) 406 of 2011 and another by her husband, Sri Narayan Sutradhar being T.S. (MAC) 53 of 2012. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month and dependency of the family was Rs. 2,000/-. He after applying multiplier of 16 following Sarla Verma''s case awarded a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- as loss of dependency. In addition thereto he awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium i.e. a total award of Rs. 3,99,000/-. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- payable as funeral expenses and loss of consortium was made exclusively payable to the husband. Out of the balance amount of Rs. 3,84,000/-, 1/7th was awarded to the husband and 3/7th each was to the mother and father of the deceased. Aggrieved by this portion of the award relating to the apportionment, the husband has filed the present appeal.

The reasoning given by the learned Tribunal is that the deceased died issueless and the husband got remarried which showed that he had overcome the grief and shock for the death of his wife and is capable of maintaining himself and, therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation for loss of dependency though he may be granted some small token amount.

I am afraid that this reasoning of the learned Tribunal is totally erroneous. If this reasoning is to be followed then even if the husband was the sole claimant then also he would have only been given a token amount as compensation. Merely because there is a conflict between the parents of the deceased and the husband of the deceased does not mean that because the husband has remarried he is not entitled to any compensation.

The High Court of Rajasthan in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Babulal and another: 2007 ACJ 999 has clearly held that second marriage may be as one of the factors while arriving at just compensation, but it is not sufficient ground to deny compensation to the husband. Another factor which should have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal was that the age of the parents was much more than that of the husband. The parents would be much older than the husband and therefore, their length of dependency would be much less. The deceased would also contribute to her husband inasmuch as she was looking after his house hold and she was definitely not looking after the house hold of the parents. There may be cases where the parents are fully dependent on the daughter where they may be granted higher compensation. However, in the present case, though the parents have alleged that they were fully dependant on the daughter, I am unable to accept this version of the parents. The reason for saying so is that according to the parents the father is aged 60 years and the mother is only aged 50 years. If both of them are of this age group then both being able bodied persons can earn some amount. There is nothing on record to show that they are physically incapacitated from earning any amount. Another reason for saying so is that the father of the deceased in his cross-examination has admitted that he is a carpenter and PW-3 has also stated that he is a colleague of the father who is working as a carpenter. This shows that the father is also a carpenter like the husband and therefore, the father in my opinion could not even have been dependent on the daughter. Primarily, the mother may have been dependent. As held by the Rajasthan High Court the fact that the husband has got re-married can be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation, but it is not a ground to deny him compensation virtually being done by the learned Tribunal.

In this case, the father would also be entitled to only a nominal compensation if at all because he was not dependent on the daughter. The mother may have been dependent on the daughter and keeping view the fact that the husband has remarried she may be entitled to a larger share in the compensation.

Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 3,99,000/- is apportioned as follows:

Husband: Rs. 2,00,000/- inclusive of the amounts awarded for funeral expenses and loss of consortium.

Mother: Rs. 1,50,000/-.

Father: Rs. 49,000/-.

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.