Major children and grandchildren can claim compensation for loss of dependency, reflecting emotional and psychological ties, not limited to financial support.

JUDGMENT

Dated : 5^th March, 2025 The petitioners in OP(MV).1048/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioners are the children and grandchildren of deceased Ayyappan, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 9.5.2010. According to the petitioners, on 9.5.2010 at about 5.00 pm while the deceased was walking along the side of Angamaly – Manjappra road, a car bearing registration No.KL-7/AZ/8031 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him down and as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the next day. The 1^st respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. The quantum of compensation claimed in the OP was Rs.23,85,000/- limited to Rs.10,00,000/-. The 3^rd respondent Company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as the policy but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

4. The evidence in the case consists of Exts.A1 to A11. No oral evidence was adduced on either side.

5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a total compensation of Rs.267104/- and directed the 3^rd respondent to pay the same. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this Appeal.

6. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following : Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable ?

7. Heard Smt.Anupama Johny, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and Smt.Deepa George, the learned Standing Counsel.

8. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent is that the deceased was aged 75 while the petitioners 1 to 5, his children as well as petitioners 6 and 7, who are his grand children are major and as such, they cannot be treated as dependents of the deceased. In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Thressiamma and Others v. General Manager and Another , 2016 KHC 24. In the above decision the deceased was aged more than 82 years and claimants were between the age group of 48 to 57. In paragraph 7 the Division Bench held that :

“At the very outset, this Court is of the view that the course pursued by the Tribunal granting compensation towards loss of dependency does not appear to be correct, for the fact that all the claimants before the Tribunal were aged 57 years, 55 years, 52 years and 48 years respectively; who were the children of the deceased and were leading independent life of their own, living with their spouse and children. When the concerned applicants contend that they were still depending upon the father aged more than 82 years, it may have to be presumed that the so -called children, instead of living as dutiful / responsible son / daughters, discharging their obligation to their age old father, allowing him to take rest and lead a peaceful living on the eve of his life, were virtually driving him to do some or other avocation of his own, earning income and providing the same to be shared among themselves, which cannot but be deprecated by this Court. It may be a case where the deceased would not have intended or desired to pull on at the mercy of others, though they are his children, thus compelling him to eke out his livelihood by some or other means