SONMAT DEVI Vs. AJAY KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON Gangadhar Sahu died in a motor vehicle accident leaving behind his mother smt. Sonmat Devi, widow Smt. Manju Devi, two minor children Namita Kumari and Niraj kumar from the first wife of the deceased and one minor son Nishant Kumar from the second marriage with Smt. Manju Devi. All the five claimants jointly filed Compensation case No. 98 of 1998 in the Court of Motor vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. The claimant's case was that the deceased was a Senior Accountant in the office of the accountant General, Biha, Jharkhand and was getting salary of Rs. 7280/ -. The claimants, therefore, jointly claimed Rs. 10 lakhs by way of compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties awarded compensation of rs. 6,83,000/ -. However, the Tribunal held that since the claimant Manju Devi had not produced any document in support of her case that she is the second wife of the deceased and the first wife was divorced by the deceased, she is not entitled to any compensation. Hence, these two appeals have been filed, one by the widow Manju devi being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 271 of 2003 for grant of compensation in her favour also, and another by the deceased's mother and the children of the first wife being M. A. No. 266 of 2003 for enhancement of compensation. First we would like to decide M. A. No. 271 of 2003. In this appeal, the appellant, manju Devi has filed one application under order XLI, Rule 27, C. P. C. for adducing the certified copy of the judgment passed by IVth additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in matrimonial Title Suit No. 36 of 1991 as additional evidence to show that the marriage was dissolved in between the deceased and the first wife.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the mother of the deceased has not disputed this fact that the marriage of the deceased with the first wife was dissolved by a decree, passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Tribunal has committed serious error of law in not considering the fact that the mother and the widow Majnu Devi jointly filed the claim application for the grant of compensation and no one raised objection with regard to entitlement of the widow Manju Devi to get compensation. We, therefore, allow the interlocutory Application (No. 267 of 2004)and considering the decree passed by the additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 36 of 1991, we hold that the appellant Manju Devi is also entitled to get compensation. Accordingly, m. A. No. 271 of 2003 is allowed.

(3.) NOW the question that falls for consideration as to whether the claimants are entitled to more compensation than the compensation awarded by the Claims tribunal.