Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29392
CS DIAS, J
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD – Appellant
Versus
SHALUMOL – Respondent
MACA No. 1768 of 2021 | OPMV 1795/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DEEPA GEORGE
For the Respondents: MATHEWS K. PHILIP, SMT. MANASY.T
Legal representatives can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act even if they are not financially dependent, focusing on overall contributions and relationships with the deceased.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation claim - Respondents claimed Rs.20,00,000/- for loss due to the death of their breadwinner - Tribunal awarded Rs.17,32,680/- which was primarily based on the dependency of the claimants. Appellant contested the respondents' status as dependents but failed to provide evidence to counter the claim. (Paras 1, 2, 5, 56)
(B) Legal Representatives and Dependent Status - Court confirmed that married daughters and parents can claim compensation under the Act even if they are not financially dependent, focusing on the nature of their relationship with the deceased, emphasizing that dependency encompasses emotional and service contributions. (Paras 46, 48, 56)
Facts of the case:
The claim arose from the death of Sreedevi, an anganwadi worker, due to a vehicular accident while commuting to work. The claimants included her two daughters and elderly parents, asserting they're dependents on her.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the claimants are legal representatives entitled to compensation despite disputes over dependency. The compensation was awarded after deducting for personal living expenses.
Issues: (i) Is dependency a criterion under Section 166? (ii) Are parents and married daughters entitled to claim compensation? (iii) What constitutes a legal representative under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: Dependency is only one aspect; legal representatives include those who, even if not financially dependent, are entitled to make a claim on the basis of emotional and service support provided to them by the deceased.
Result: Appeal dismissed, and award confirmed with modifications in compensation apportionment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. victims' family seeks compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over dependency of claimants. (Para 3 , 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. dependency considered in claims by legal representatives. (Para 10 , 12 , 16 , 20 , 23 , 34 , 41 , 56) |
| 4. legal framework guiding compensation assessment. (Para 15 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 35) |
| 5. court dismisses appeal, confirms compensation. (Para 58) |
JUDGMENT
It is said; “accidents do happen, unfortunately, it happens at the worst time”. Shalumol and Malumol, while in the worst time of their lives, due to the untimely demise of their father, have tragically lost their mother too in an accident.
2. On 09.06.2018, while Sreedevi was on her way to work, she was mowed down to death by a vehicle. Shalumol and Malumol and their maternal grandparents, the respondents in the appeal, moved the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity referred to as ‘Act, 1988’) claiming compensation from the insured and the insurer of the vehicle. They averred in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver cum owner (the 1st respondent before the Tribunal) of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-43/G-3561. The vehicle was insured with the appellant. Sreedevi was 49 years of age, on the date of her death. She was an anganwadi worker and earning a monthly honorarium of Rs.18,000/-. She was the breadwinner of the family. The respondents were dependent on her. The respondents lost the love, affection, happiness, consortium and pecuniary benefits that Sreedevi provided. Hence, they claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the appellant.
3. The respondents before the Tribunal ― the driver cum owner of the vehicle and the appellant ― resisted the claim petition. The driver cum owner contended that, as his vehicle was insured with the appellant, the insurer was liable to indemnify him. The appellant admitted the insurance coverage of the vehicle, but disputed the age, income and occupation of Sreedevi. The appellant also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Sreedevi and the respondents were not the legal representatives and dependants of Sreedevi.
4. The respondents marked Exhibits A1 to A6 in evidence. The appellant did not let in any evidence.
5. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition, by holding that the respondents were the legal representatives and dependants of Sreedevi, and permitted the respondents to realise an amount of Rs.17,32,680/- with interest and costs from the appellant.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurer is in appeal. The appellant has not impleaded the driver cum owner as a party in the appeal.
7. Heard; Smt.Deepa George, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, Smt.Manasy.T, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Amicus Curiae.
8. Smt.Deepa George argued that the finding of the Tribunal that the respondents 1, 3 and 4 ‒ the married daughter and parents of Sreedevi ‒ were dependent on Sreedevi is erroneous, and only the 2nd respondent, the unmarried daughter of Sreedevi, was dependent on her. So, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of dependency only for the 2nd respondent, that too after deducting one half of the compensation towards the personal living expenses of the deceased as held by the Honourable Supreme Court inSarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] andNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. She also placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court inAmrit Bhanu Shali & Anr v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors [(2012) 11 SCC 738] and Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another [ (2007) 10 SCC 643 ] and the decisions of this Court inSujatha P and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2017 (5) KHC 568], Thressiamma v. State Expresss Transport Corporation (TN) Ltd. [2016 KHC 24], Joseph v. Giji Varghese [2009 KHC
