Financial dependency is essential for compensation claims; the owner of the vehicle cannot claim dependency compensation unless proven financially dependent on the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

The core issue to be decided is whether the daughter, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, should be considered a ‘dependent’ for the purpose of calculating deduction towards personal expenses in determining compensation under the head loss of dependency and the deduction to be made against personal and living expenses is whether on the number of the family members or on the number of dependent family members.

2. The appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.183 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The respondents 1 & 2 herein were the claimants, the third respondent herein was the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle and the fourth respondent herein was the supplemental sixth respondent/mother of the deceased before the tribunal.

3. Cross Objection No. 66 of 2017 in the appeal has been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

4. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

5. The case of the claimants was that on 22.07.2013, while the deceased was pillion riding on a two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-D-5285 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, it hit on the rear side of an another two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-C-5082, which was stopped abruptly, whereby the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹20,00,000/-.

6. The first respondent/rider of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement, denying negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the motorcycle. The third respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The fourth respondent/rider of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-C-5082 filed a written statement, contending that she is an unnecessary party. The fifth respondent/insurer of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-C- 5082 filed a written statement, denying the policy coverage and disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The supplemental sixth respondent/mother of the deceased filed a written statement, stating that she is a legal heir and dependent on the deceased and that she is entitled for compensation. PW1 & PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A21 were marked on the side of the claimants, and Ext.B1 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 first respondent/rider of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-D-5285 and awarded a sum of ₹19,35,510/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The third respondent insurer has come up in appeal, alleging that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive, whereas the claimants filed the cross objection dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation.

7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/cross objectors/claimants.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer assailed the impugned award mainly with respect to the compensation awarded under the heads - loss of dependency, loss of love & affection and funeral expenses, whereas the learned counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the income fixed by the tribunal as well as the compensation awarded towards loss of estate.

9. Notional income - The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the decease