Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 20506
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER – Appellant
Versus
NINGAVVA @ NINGAMMA – Respondent
MFA 101890/2016
SRI. ANJANEYA M, SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, SRI. S. C. BHUTI
Dependency in compensation claims should be understood broadly, allowing claims from legal representatives regardless of strict financial dependency.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for loss of dependency - The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,15,000/-; however, the court modified this to Rs.7,98,600/- based on re-assessment of income and loss of future prospects, affirming that both claimants are dependents. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 14)
(B) Dependency - The court recognized that dependency should be understood broadly, considering the nature of relationships and contributions rather than strict financial criteria. (Paras 7, 9)
(C) Contributory Negligence - The court found no evidence of contributory negligence by the deceased, dismissing the Corporation's claims to that effect. (Paras 13)
Facts of the case:
The claimants, a daughter and son of the deceased, sought enhanced compensation after the mother died in an accident. The Tribunal initially awarded compensation based on a lower income assessment.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the claimants are indeed dependents and entitled to modified compensation.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of dependency, the assessment of income, and the question of contributory negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that dependency must be assessed in a broader context, affirming that legal representatives have the right to claim compensation regardless of strict dependency definitions.
Result: MFA.No.101886/2016 stands allowed in part and MFA.No.101890/2016 stands dismissed.
1. MFA.No.101886/2016 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. MFA.No.101890/2016 is filed by the Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the liability saddled on the appellant/Corporation.
2. Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 14.01.2016, passed in MVC No.511/2013 on the file of MACT-II, Ballari (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
3. Sri.S.C.Bhuthi, learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding compensation to the claimants and computing of loss of dependency. Admittedly, both the claimants are not depending on the income of the deceased. He submits that claimant No.1 is Devadasi and she deposed before the Tribunal that she used to take care of the deceased. It is further submitted that the claimant No.2 is the son of the deceased and after the marriage, he is residing with his wife in a different village. Hence, award of compensation under the head of loss of dependency is required to be interfered with. He further submits that the accident in question has taken place in the middle of the road. Hence, some contributory negligency is required to be saddled on the deceased.
4. Per contra, Sri.Anjaneya M., learned counsel for the claimants submits that both the claimants are depending on the income of the deceased. He submits that the police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending bus. Hence, question of contributory negligence by the deceased would not arise. He submits that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. which is required to be re- assessed. He further submits that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head of loss of future prospects of the deceased and compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal of the claimants.
5. I have heard the arguments of Sri.Anjaneya M, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri.S.C. Bhuthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ Corporation and perused the material available on record.
6. It is not in dispute that on 7.4.2013, Smt.Huligemma met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.
7. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation that the claimant No.1 is not the dependent of the deceased is concerned, PW.1 has clearly deposed that she work in a scrap shop and used to take care of medical and other expenses of the deceased. The stray sentence in the evidence of PW.1 that she used to work in a scrap shop cannot be the basis to hold that the claimant No.1 is not the dependant of the deceased. The word ‘dependency’ though not defined in the Motor Vehicle Act, it should be understood in a broader sense, keeping in mind the object of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989. Admittedly, the claimant No.1 is a Devadasi, which clearly indicates that she does not have any regular or fixed income. Moreover, the claimant No.1 was unmarried and was residing along with the deceased under one roof. Hence, the claimant No.1 is a dependent of the deceased.
8. Insofar as claimant No.2 is concerned, though PW.2 has deposed that the claimant No.2 was residing along with his wife, that itself would not be a ground to come to the conclusion that the claimant No.2 was not depending on the income of the deceased.
9. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not made any attempt to adduce the evidence of independent witness nor it has produced any documents with regard to the dependency of claimants, except making written statement before the Tribunal. Hence, in the absence of any contrary evidence on record this court holds that the claimant No.2 is dependant of the deceased. It would be useful to refer decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Birender and others , reported in 2020 SCC 759
