Widow’s remarriage does not extinguish compensation right: Raj HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that remarriage of a widow does not disentitle her from claiming compensation arising out of the death of her husband in a motor accident, as her right crystallizes on the date of accident. The Court further held that while remarriage does not extinguish entitlement, the apportionment of compensation may be adjusted in the peculiar facts of a case to balance equities between a minor child and a remarried spouse.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recorded that the issue of remarriage is no longer res integra and that consistent judicial opinion holds that a widow cannot be denied compensation merely because she has remarried. The Court referred to several precedents including Hariram & Ors. vs Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act (1994 ACJ 1094), Regal Sports vs Mohd. Siddique & Ors. (1994 ACJ 294), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Kiran Lata (1993 ACJ 130), Vimla Devi & Ors. vs Chaman & Ors. (1992 ACJ 1048), and other decisions consistently holding that remarriage does not dis-entitle a widow from compensation.

These observations were made while deciding a batch of four connected appeals arising out of the common award dated June 29, 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court, Communal Riots), Jaipur. Two appeals were filed by the Insurance Company challenging liability, and two appeals were filed by claimants seeking enhancement and modification of apportionment.

In the appeals filed by the Insurance Company, it was contended that the vehicle was a goods carriage and that more than fifteen passengers were travelling in breach of policy. The claimants relied upon the insurance policy (Exhibit-13), which showed that premium under the head of Legal Liability to Non-Fare Paying Passengers (LLTNFPP) had been paid for six persons. The Court held that the premium of Rs.150 had been charged for six passengers and that in the present case only two claim petitions had been filed. Relying upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Mahesh Kumar & Anr. vs Om Prakash & Anr., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.230/2000 decided on October 24, 2017, and referring to Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhagwan Singh @ Bhanwar Singh & Ors. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Anjana Shyam & Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 445, the Court rejected the appeals of the Insurance Company and upheld its liability.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4804/2018, filed by the dependents of deceased Jainarayan Meena, the Tribunal had awarded 15% of compensation to minor daughter Hansa, 15% to mother of the deceased, and 70% to widow Lalli Devi, who had remarried during pendency of proceedings. The High Court held that the widow remained legally entitled to compensation but, considering the peculiar facts that she had remarried leaving the 13-month-old minor daughter in the care of paternal grandparents, redistribution was warranted. The Court modified the apportionment to 45% in favour of minor daughter Hansa, 15% in favour of grandmother Bhonri Devi, and 40% in favour of remarried widow Lalli Devi.

The Court further held that since the deceased was a daily wager treated as unskilled labour, monthly income ought to have been calculated for 30 days instead of 26 days, relying upon Nandu Devi & Anr. vs Sohan Lal & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.769/2019 decided on February 23, 2022) and Jalaur Singh & Ors. vs Barkat Singh & Ors. reported in 2012 (2) MACT Raj. 692. The Court also applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and awarded Rs.40,000 separately to each dependent under the head of consortium. The total compensation was enhanced to Rs.9,83,492, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs.2,03,864.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4843/2018 relating to deceased Jagdish Prasad Meena, similar recalculation was undertaken by assessing income for 30 days and awarding consortium of Rs.40,000 each to five dependents. The compensation was enhanced to Rs.10,97,510, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs.2,90,668.

The appeals filed by the Insurance Company were dismissed. The claimant appeals were partly allowed, compensation was enhanced, and detailed directions were issued regarding distribution, fixed deposits and interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

Case Title
Kumari Hansa & Ors. vs Kailash Chand Sharma & Ors. (Connected matters)

Case Numbers
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 4804/2018, 4843/2018, 4902/2018 & 4903/2018

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

Bench
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Date of Judgment
February 6, 2026

Advocates
For appellants (Insurance Company): Mr. Vinay Mathur with Mr. Ashish Mittal
For claimants: Mr. Ayush Gupta
For Insurance Company (in claimant appeals): Mr. Ajay Kumar Tanenia

Judgments Relied Upon

Hariram & Ors. vs Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1994 ACJ 1094
Regal Sports vs Mohd. Siddique & Ors., 1994 ACJ 294
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Kiran Lata & Ors., 1993 ACJ 130
Vimla Devi & Ors. vs Chaman & Ors., 1992 ACJ 1048
Rajinder Kumar & Ors. vs Soma Devi & Ors., 2001 ACJ 311
Chandan vs Kanwarlal, 1989 ACJ 816
Khairullah vs Anita, 1994 ACJ 1017
Nankuram Sarajdin vs Member MACT Thane, 1994 (2) TAC 346
Halki Bai vs New Delhi Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 ACJ 187
Mahesh Kumar & Anr. vs Om Prakash & Anr., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.230/2000
Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhagwan Singh @ Bhanwar Singh & Ors.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Anjana Shyam & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 445
Nandu Devi & Anr. vs Sohan Lal & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.769/2019
Jalaur Singh & Ors. vs Barkat Singh & Ors., 2012 (2) MACT Raj. 692
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680