Siblings can claim compensation for loss of estate despite lack of dependency, and additional compensation for loss of love and affection is warranted.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP (MV) No. 653 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Palakkad, challenging the impugned award dated 31.07.2017. The first respondent herein was the claimant and respondents 2 & 3 herein were respondents 1 & 2 before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal was that on 11.10.2015, while the deceased Siju was walking along the side of the public road in Chandranagar, a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. TN 40-B-9556 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against him, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimant has approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The first respondent appeared before the tribunal and filed a written statement. The second respondent remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claimant. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the third respondent insurer. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer. The respondent insurer has come up in appeal, alleging that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent insurer and the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant.

4. The main challenge raised in this appeal is regarding the compensation awarded by the tribunal towards loss of dependency. Before the tribunal, the insurer raised the contention that the claimant, being the sister of the deceased, was not entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency. The claimant was the only legal heir of the deceased Siju. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits that the claimant being a married person, is not dependent on her deceased brother and hence, is not entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer further relied on the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC), wherein it was held that basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. Thus, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the claimant, being not a dependent of the deceased Siju, is not entitled for compensation. The learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submits that the tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under the afore head. Her parents are no more and the claimant being the only legal heir/legal representative, was dependent on her brother and hence, she is entitled for compensation for the death of her brother, Siju.

5. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. First of all, the fact that the claimant was the legal representative of the deceased is not disputed. Further, it is also undisputed that the claimant was the sole legal heir of the deceased. The claimant, a 30-year-old married woman, was residing with her husband. Although married, the claimant, being the sole sibling, might have been financially dependent on her brother since her parents are no more. However, no evidence was adduced to prove the same. In Joseph v. Giji Varghese & Others, 2009 KHC 1076, this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation, wherein the claim petition was filed by the sibling of the deceased, and held as follows:

“The learned counsel fo