In motor accident compensation claims involving a deceased spinster, only siblings who provide evidence of active financial dependency qualify for loss of dependency compensation; furthermore, one-half of the deceased's income must be deducted for personal living expenses, and penal interest cannot be unilaterally imposed.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the third respondent/insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants in OP(MV) No.69 of 2015 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara. The claim petition was filed by the siblings of the deceased, Ms. Santhamma, who lost her life in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.10.2014, seeking compensation on account of the death of their sister. The respondents herein were the claimants before the tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants was that on 04.10.2014, while the deceased was crossing the road through zebra line at Krishnapuram junction along the Kollam-Alappuzha National Highway, a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-29G/6584 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit her, whereby she 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 Rs.5,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, 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. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A20 & X1 were marked on the side of the claimants. 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.6,89,400/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 12% per annum was also awarded. The respondent insurer has come up in appeal, challenging notional monthly income fixed by the tribunal as well as the compensation awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency.

4. I have heard Smt.Preethy R. Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer; and Sri.Arun Bose, the learned counsel for the claimants.

5. The main issue for consideration in this appeal is whether the awarding of compensation to the claimants, who are the siblings of the deceased, under the head of loss of dependency is correct or not. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, the claimants, being major siblings of the deceased and residing separately with their respective families, were not dependent on the deceased and, therefore, are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Though a specific contention that the claimants, being the siblings, are not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency was raised by the insurer before the tribunal, relying on the evidence of PW1 (second claimant), the tribunal considered the claimants as dependents and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. To substantiate the arguments, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the apex court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Anand Pal & Others,  2023 KHC 7268. It was also the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that since the monthly pension of the d