Point of Law : Motor Accident – Compensation - The general rule which has always prevailed in regard to the assessment of damages under Fatal Accidents Act is well settled, namely, that any benefit accruing to a dependent by reason of relevant death must be taken into account. Under those Acts the balance of loss and gain to a dependent by death must be ascertained, position of each dependent being considered separately.

JUDGMENT :

It is said; “accidents do happen, unfortunately, it happens at the worst time”. Shalumol and Malumol, while in the worst time of their lives, due to the untimely demise of their father, have tragically lost their mother too in an accident.

2. On 09.06.2018, while Sreedevi was on her way to work, she was mowed down to death by a vehicle. Shalumol and Malumol and their maternal grandparents, the respondents in the appeal, moved the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity referred to as ‘Act, 1988’) claiming compensation from the insured and the insurer of the vehicle. They averred in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver cum owner (the 1st respondent before the Tribunal) of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-43/G-3561. The vehicle was insured with the appellant. Sreedevi was 49 years of age, on the date of her death. She was an anganwadi worker and earning a monthly honorarium of Rs.18,000/-. She was the breadwinner of the family. The respondents were dependent on her. The respondents lost the love, affection, happiness, consortium and pecuniary benefits that Sreedevi provided. Hence, they claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the appellant.

3. The respondents before the Tribunal ? the driver cum owner of the vehicle and the appellant ? resisted the claim petition. The driver cum owner contended that, as his vehicle was insured with the appellant, the insurer was liable to indemnify him. The appellant admitted the insurance coverage of the vehicle, but disputed the age, income and occupation of Sreedevi. The appellant also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Sreedevi and the respondents were not the legal representatives and dependants of Sreedevi.

4. The respondents marked Exhibits A1 to A6 in evidence. The appellant did not let in any evidence.

5. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition, by holding that the respondents were the legal representatives and dependants of Sreedevi, and permitted the respondents to realise an amount of Rs.17,32,680/- with interest and costs from the appellant.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurer is in appeal. The appellant has not impleaded the driver cum owner as a party in the appeal.

7. Heard; Smt.Deepa George, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, Smt.Manasy.T, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Amicus Curiae.

8. Smt.Deepa George argued that the finding of the Tribunal that the respondents 1, 3 and 4 ? the married daughter and parents of Sreedevi ? were dependent on Sreedevi is erroneous, and only the 2nd respondent, the unmarried daughter of Sreedevi, was dependent on her. So, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of dependency only for the 2nd respondent, that too after deducting one half of the compensation towards the personal living expenses of the deceased as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. She also placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Anr v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors [(2012) 11 SCC 738] and Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another [(2007) 10 SCC 643] and the decisions of this Court in Sujatha P and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2017 (5) KHC 568], Thressiamma v. State Expresss Transport Corporation (TN) Ltd. [2016 KHC 24], Joseph v. Giji Varghese [2009 KHC 1076] to fortify her contention that in a claim under Section 166 of the Act, it is imperative for the claimants to plead and prove that they were the dependents of the deceased.

9. Smt. Manasy.T countered the above submissions by contending that, after Sreedevi lost her husband, her septuagenarian parents started living with her and her two daughters. Sreedevi was the sole bread