A widow’s remarriage does not extinguish her accrued right to motor accident compensation.

Kulmit Singh died in a motor-vehicle accident on 22.05.1995 involving tanker No. PB-05-2144, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, and insured by respondent No.3.

His wife and parents filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur, assessed the deceased’s income at Rs.2,500 per month and awarded Rs.50,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The claimants appealed seeking enhancement, contending that the Tribunal had undervalued the deceased’s income, failed to account for future prospects, and granted no adequate compensation under the conventional heads.

The Tribunal’s finding that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 was not challenged and was maintained.

The Court applied Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation arising from motor accidents.

It relied on the principle of “just compensation,” as explained in Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, requiring a fair but non-arbitrary assessment based on a reasonable nexus between the loss suffered and the compensation awarded.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the Court applied a one-third deduction for personal and living expenses where there were three dependants and the multiplier of 17 for a deceased aged approximately 26 years.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 40% was added towards future prospects for a deceased below 40 years of age and compensation was awarded under conventional heads.

Relying on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, the Court recognised the entitlement of the deceased’s parents to filial consortium.

The Court further held that a widow’s subsequent remarriage does not extinguish her accrued right to claim compensation.

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.2,500, treating him as a skilled work-charged employee.

Since he was approximately 26 years old, 40% was added for future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of Rs.3,500.

As he left three dependants—his wife and both parents—one-third was deducted towards personal expenses, producing a monthly dependency loss of Rs.2,333 and an annual loss of Rs.27,996.

Applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.4,75,932.

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s exclusion of the widow on the ground of remarriage, holding that her right to compensation accrued on the date of death and was not defeated by subsequent remarriage.

It further awarded reduced conventional compensation, having regard to the 1995 accident: Rs.35,000 to the wife under conventional heads and Rs.40,000 as filial consortium to the parents.

The total compensation was accordingly rounded to Rs.5,51,000.

The Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs.50,000 to Rs.5,51,000, resulting in enhanced compensation of Rs.5,01,000, with interest at 9% per annum from 25.09.1995, the date of filing of the claim petition, until realization.

Respondents No.2 and 3—the owner and insurer—were held jointly and severally liable.

The enhanced amount was directed to be paid to the wife, mother, and father of the deceased in equal shares, along with proportionate interest.