Court clarified the dependency criteria for compensation in fatal accidents, emphasizing bereaved family members' rights under social welfare legislation.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026 The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 1045 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of one Ali, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 24.04.2017.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

On 24.04.2017, at about 2.40 p.m, while Ali, the deceased in this case, was driving his Goods Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-41/B-903 from Hill Palace to Pukkattupady, a bus bearing Registration No.KL-07/BB-8370 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the autorickshaw from behind resulting serious injuries to him. Immediately after the accident, the injured was taken to V.K.M. Hospital, Tripunithura, where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment.

3. The driver and owner of the offending bus were arrayed as the 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively whereas the insurer was arrayed as 3^rd respondent. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were set ex parte. The 3^rd respondent contested the petition and filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the bus involved in the accident.

4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioners were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. The copy of Insurance Policy produced from the side of the respondent was marked as Ext.B1.

5. After trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration No.KL-07/BB-8370 by the 1^st respondent, and being the insurer, the 3^rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.9,40,100/-, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have come up with this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is grossly inadequate and does not commensurate with the loss and damages suffered by the bereaved family members of the deceased. According to the counsel, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased reasonably and consequently awarded only a meagre amount as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The learned counsel would further contend that the Tribunal without assigning any reason deducted half of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased disregarding the fact that all the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased.

8. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is reasonable and justifiable and that no interference is warranted. According to the learned standing counsel, in the absence of any evidence to prove dependency, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for reducing half of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Likewise, the learned standing counsel would submit that although the deceased was the registered owner of the vehicle, after his demise his legal heirs can very well use the said vehicle to generate income also and therefore the assessment of income made by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.

9. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of comp