IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2918 of 2022)

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS MINAKSHI SHANTILAL VALAND (SHARMA)

AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS R1 : MINAKSHI SHANTILAL VALAND (SHARMA)

R2 : Thakor Jayantibhai Piraji R3 : Bipinsinh Balusinh Pawar R4 : Makwana Jesangbhai Kiranbhai R5 : Nimeshkumar Amin Jayantibhai R6 : Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. By order dated 03.03.2022, this Court was persuaded to issue notice as has been recorded in the order on the ground Signattureh Nota Vetrified the beneficiary-respondent no.1-claimant was a married Digitally signed by SAPNA BISHT Date: 2025.05.22

17:57:s34 IiSTster and thus, the determination of the amount as dependent Reason:

on the brother is not sustainable.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that the sister of the deceased is married living with her husband in the United Kingdom and the deceased, though being her brother, met with an accident and died. Thus, the claimant not being dependent, the amount awarded under the head of dependency is unsustainable.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that in an Indian family even married siblings get a share of an earning of another sibling and in the present case, the deceased was unmarried and thus, was also contributing in the expenses incurred by the claimant(s). It was contended that the fact of dependency cannot be harped upon beyond a certain point as it has been held that the legal representatives of the deceased are also entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the “M.V. Act”).

6. Having considered the matter, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The fact that the insurance policies are bought by a person to cover a situation where a person may not be alive or may suffer disability which would otherwise, make him incapable of caring for his dependent family members. It is not supposed to be a windfall for siblings or other relatives who may never have been dependent on the deceased but upon death, come and claim compensation under the M.V. Act. In the present case, it is undisputed that the deceased was a bachelor and the claimant is his sister, who is married and living with her husband in the United Kingdom. Thus, she may have claim under the head of loss of filial consortium and other attended charges like funeral expenses, medical expenditure, etc., but in the considered opinion of the Court, there cannot be any claim of loss of dependency in the particular facts of the present case. If the claimant/sister of the deceased would be held responsible, it would not only initiate against the settled principles of insurance but also be contrary to the very spirit of why a person gets insured and for covering situations which in the present case are not covered.

7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court where it awarded compensation of Rs.84,77,040/- (Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Forty) under the head of loss of dependency is set aside. However, by way of loss of filial consortium, an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) is held to be payable. Further, Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) towards funeral expenses are also required to be paid to the claimant sister of the deceased. Thus, total amount would come to Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.30,000/- = Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand). The same shall carry interest @8% per annum. The appellant shall pay the same if not already paid. However, having held the aforesaid, in view of the appellant having deposited the entire award amount and 10% of the said amount being ordered to be released to the concerned respondents vide order dated 03.03.2022 passed by this Court, for the ends of justice, we deem