Legal representatives, dependent or not, are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Recent judgments emphasize the evolving definitions of dependency and familial contributions, allowing claims from non-dependent relatives.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act , praying this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award dated 11.07.2023 passed in MVC No.549/2020 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) and to enhance the total compensation with any other suitable order or direction as deemed fit under the circumstances of the case.

2. The factual matrix of the claimants before the Tribunal is that they are the parents of the deceased Roshan, who met with an accident on 23.01.2020, while proceeding along with his friends to attend work of respondent No.1 in Swift Dzire car bearing No.KA-25/Z- 8774 (offending vehicle). After attending work of respondent No.1, returning from Humnabad to Kalaburagi, the accident occurred near Kudremukha Guddha at about 12:30 AM. It is contended that respondent No.1 was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and ran into a lorry, which was going in front of the car at high speed. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries while shifting him to Basaveshwara Hospital in an ambulance.

3. The claimants, who are the parents in the claim petition, stated that the deceased was a brilliant student pursuing B.Com as well as working and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and they lost their son. The vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify respondent No.1, in view of the insurance. The claim petition was filed accordingly.

4. In response to claim petition, respondent No.1/owner did not choose to appear before the Tribunal and he was placed Ex-parte. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed statement of objections, contending that the claim petition is not maintainable. Respondent No.2 also denied the age, income of the deceased and the manner of the accident and denied the entire contention of the claimants. It was contended that the accident was on account of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, since he was not wearing seat belt. Hence, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. It was further contended that if any liability is fixed, it is subject to the limitations in the terms and conditions of the policy.

5. The Tribunal, having considered the pleadings, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence on the account of death of the deceased. The second claimant, who is the father of the deceased, was examined as PW-1 and document Exhibits P-1 and P-12 were marked. The respondent also examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and document Exhibits R-1 to R-3 were marked.

6. The Tribunal having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered issue No.1 in affirmative and referred to the accident as caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Swift Dzire car. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal awarded a total of Rs.77,000/- only under the heads of funeral expenses and transportation charges, loss of estate and towards loss of consortium in respect of the father. The Tribunal declined compensation towards loss of dependency by relying upon the judgment of the Divisional Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268 – A.Manavalagan vs. A.Krishnamurthy and Others , wherein the question of awarding any amount under the head of loss of dependency was held not to arise, since there was no financial dependency. In the case on hand, the father of the deceased categorically admitted that he is working as a government servant in the Women and Child Welfare Department, earning a monthly salary of R