Dependency for motor accident compensation is a question of fact determined by evidence of financial support rather than strict legal relationship; legal representatives need not be legal heirs.

JUDGMENT

(A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.J.)

1. This appeal was preferred by the insurer, National Insurance Company Limited. The Appellant is aggrieved by a Judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, dated 12-08-2024, in a Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Learned Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay compensation of ₹ 85,59,880/- (Rupees eighty-five lakhs, fifty-nine thousand, eight hundred and eighty only) together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the Respondents-Claimants.

3. The Respondent-Claimants are siblings who claimed compensation as dependents of their sister-in-law.

4. The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of this Appeal, are that the deceased sister-in-law, Toran Suresh Punamiya, was married to the younger brother of the Claimants, namely, Suresh Punamiya. Two children were born out of wedlock. Claimants’ brother, Suresh Punamiya and his wife, Toran Suresh Punamiya, along with two minor children, who were the permanent residents of Maharashtra, had visited Sikkim as tourists. During their visit, they hired a vehicle which was insured by the Appellant-Insurer. It appears that while travelling to Lachung, North Sikkim, the vehicle met with an accident and fell approximately 700 feet off the cliff, resulting in their instantaneous death.

5. The Claimants thereafter instituted claim proceedings seeking compensation for the loss. The Claimants, by separate proceedings, were found entitled to the compensation – consequent upon the death of their brother and his two minor children. It was submitted at the Bar that the said claim for compensation was allowed but is presently challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. The Insurer has preferred the present Appeal essentially on two grounds. Firstly, that the Claimants are not dependent on the income of the deceased sister-in-law and therefore, the Tribunal erred in calculating compensation under the head of loss of dependency. That the Claimants are grown-up adults and the claims based on being dependent is a far-fetched fact, and all the Claimants are independent and possessed of their own sources of income. Secondly, that the business run by the deceased sister-in-law along with her husband was inherited by the Claimants after their demise and therefore there was no actual loss of dependency and that such claim has no foundation. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance upon Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , (2009) 6 SCC 121., National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680., Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others vs. NIC Ltd. and Others , (2012) 11 SCC 738., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. P. Sathyavathamma and Others , 2009 SCC Online AP 758., Shashikala and Others vs. Gangalakshmamma and Another , (2015) 9 SCC 150., Rani Gupta and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others , (2009) 13 SCC 498., Sadhana Tomar and Others vs. Ashok Kushwaha and Others , (2025) SCC Online SC 554., Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another , (2007) 10 SCC 643. emphasising that compensation under the head of loss of dependency depends upon proof of actual financial dependency to be determined on the ev