IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants can receive compensation for loss of dependency regardless of age or employment status, assessed based on overall circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners in O.P. (MV) No.1374/2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded on account of the death of one Retnamma, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 05.03.2009.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows. On 05.03.2009, at about 5.30 a.m., while Retnamma, the deceased in this case, was walking through the eastern side of the Kollam – Alappuzha NH Road, a Maruthi Van bearing Reg.No.KL-23A/9919 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit down Retnamma, causing her severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, though the injured was rushed to the hospital, she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment.

3. The driver and owner of the Maruti Van involved in the accident were arrayed as 1^st and 2^nd respondents, respectively, whereas, the insurer of the said vehicle is arrayed as 3^rd respondent.

4. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement mainly contesting the quantum of compensation claimed. However, the 3rd respondent admitted insurance coverage for the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in this case consists of Exts. A1 to A7 from the side of the claimants. From the side of the 3^rd respondent no evidence, whatsoever, was produced. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Van bearing Reg.No.KL-23A/9919 and being the insurer, the 3^rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,46,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants have come up with this appeal.

6. Heard Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is inadequate and not commensurate with the hardships and the loss sustained to the very bereaved family members of the deceased. The main challenge raised from the side of the appellants is regarding the inadequacy of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent, the insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is appropriate and hence no interference is warranted. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the petitioners herein are not entitled to get any amount under the head of loss of dependency as none of the claimants were the dependents of the deceased. The counsel further submitted that the fact that the deceased was aged more than 62 at the time of the accident and all the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased are aged more than 40 years have their own avocation and income by itself will disentitle them to get any amount as compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

8. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main questions which are to be addressed are whether the petitioners are entitled to get any amount as compensation under the head of loss of dependency and if entitled, what would be the compensation awarded. While addressing the said questions, first of all, it is to be noted that the claimants have a case that the deceased was a tailor by profession at the time of the accident. I do agree that other than taking such a contention no evidence was produced from the side of the claimants to show that the deceased was a tailor by profession. However, it is not prudent to expect that the claimants could produce documents to prove the income and occupation of a village lady, who was doing tailoring work from her home. Being a beneficial legislation strict proof of evidence is not required while con