Married Sisters Of Deceased Can Be Treated As Dependants For Motor Accident Compensation: Karnataka High Court
The High Court observed that in the prevailing social context, daughters and sisters often remain connected to the parental family and may receive financial support from the earning member.
Justice Umesh M Adiga, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that the insurer’s objection to the dependency status of the married sisters of the deceased for seeking compensation could not be sustained, stating that the mere fact of marriage does not, by itself, negate dependency for compensation.
The Court was hearing cross-appeals arising from the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Umesh M. Adiga, while deciding the matter, observed: “The contention of the insurer that the married sisters are residing in their matrimonial homes and therefore, cannot be treated as dependants of the deceased is untenable”.
The Bench further explained: “In our social context, it is not uncommon for daughters and sisters, even after marriage, to maintain a close relationship with their parental family. The earning member of the family often contributes towards their welfare and social needs. Therefore, their right to claim compensation cannot be denied merely on the ground of their marital status”.
Advocate Lakshmi Narasappa represented the appellants, while Advocate B.S. Sachin represented the respondents.
Background
The claimants, comprising the siblings of the deceased, sought compensation arising from the accidental death of an unmarried earning member who was stated to have been contributing to their maintenance.
The insurer contested the award on the ground that married sisters residing in their matrimonial homes could not be treated as dependants and were therefore not entitled to the compensation granted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased and awarded compensation under various permissible heads. Both sides challenged the award before the High Court, with the insurer seeking a reduction and the claimants seeking enhancement.
Court’s Observation
The Karnataka High Court examined the evidence placed before the Tribunal regarding the dependency status of the claimants. The Court noted that the deceased was an earning member of the family and that “there are no contra evidence to disbelieve” that he financially assisted his siblings.
The Bench referred to the principle that even married daughters, sons, brothers, and sisters can be dependants, relying on the precedent National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birendar, where the Supreme Court recognised such dependency claims.
The High Court also analysed the Tribunal’s computation of income and prospects, applying the principles in Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. to determine the just amount of compensation.
It held that there was nothing on record to contradict the evidence regarding financial support provided by the deceased. The insurer’s reliance on Vinish Jain was held inapplicable to the facts of the present case, as the Supreme Court in that matter had only limited the claim under certain heads.
Accordingly, the Court recalculated the income using the notional income chart and applied the appropriate multiplier, future prospects, and deductions and held that the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and partly allowed the claimants’ appeal, enhancing the compensation and affirming their status as dependants despite their marital status. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.
Cause Title: National Insurance Company Limited v. George Menezes & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:41454)
Appearances
Appellant: Lakshmi Narasappa, Advocate
Respondents: B.S. Sachin, Advocate