Siblings of a deceased are not automatically considered dependents for compensation claims; they may claim for loss of estate instead.

JUDGMENT :

The 3^rd respondent in OP(MV).No.324/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha is the appellant. The above OP was filed by the siblings and the children of a deceased sibling of one Manoj who died in a motor accident that occurred on 19.2.2013. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. According to the petitioners on 19.2.2013 at about 1.45 a.m while the deceased Manoj was riding a motorcycle along the Thodupuzha – Muvattupuzha road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL 7E-5271 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result of which he fell down, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

3. The 2^nd respondent was the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending lorry. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.32,00,000/-

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and also contending that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is so excessive.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.28,77,455/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 3^rd respondent preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, and Smt. C. Seena, the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent/appellant is that the claimants are the siblings and legal representatives of the sibling of deceased Manoj and as such, they cannot be treated as the dependents of the deceased. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that the Tribunal has added 50% of the income towards future prospects and deducted only 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses, which is not correct. It was also contended that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expense which is on the higher side and Rs.1,20,000/- was awarded towards love and affection, which cannot be allowed.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that as per Ext.A8 salary certificate, the monthly salary of the deceased who was working in the Mathrubhoomi Daily was Rs.21,743/- and as such, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- is on the lower side. The learned counsel, relying upon the evidence of PW1, would argue that the siblings were depending upon the deceased and as such, they are to be treated as the dependants of the deceased. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal was justified in deducting only one-half of the income towards personal and living expense.

12. It is true that generally the major siblings will not be treated as dependents of the deceased unless there is evidence to the contrary (The New India Assurance Company Limited. v. Anand Pal and Others, 2024 ACJ 6). In the decision in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 121, also the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they will either be independent an