Dependency Does Not Mean Financial Dependency Only: Kerala High Court Affirms Siblings’ Right To Compensation As 'Dependants' Under Motor Vehicles Act
The Court held that dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act is not limited to financial dependency alone but also includes emotional, moral, and social support.
The Kerala High Court held that siblings of a deceased individual could be considered ‘dependents’ even if they were not financially reliant on the deceased and that it would include non-financial aspects such as emotional and moral support.
A Single Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian observed, “As I have already stated, dependency does not mean financial dependency only. The emotional and physical support that would have been rendered by the deceased to his siblings if he had been alive persuades me to treat the unmarried and younger siblings of the deceased as his dependents.”
The Court further noted, “Evidently, both of them were unmarried and residing under the same roof with their deceased brother and parents...Moreover, there is no evidence to show that any of the siblings were earning members, or capable of maintaining themselves.”
The Appellants were represented by Advocate K.V. Reshmi, while Advocate Lal K. Joseph appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
While the deceased was traveling in a car driven in a rash and negligent manner, the car hit a tree, causing serious injuries to the deceased. Though he was rushed to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries.
After trial, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the driver, and the insurer was held liable to pay the compensation awarded. The compensation was quantified as Rs.17,67,700/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, along with proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellants filed an appeal before the High Court for enhancement of the compensation.
The Appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meager and was not sufficient to compensate for the loss of the bereaved family of the deceased.
The Respondent argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads was just, fair, reasonable, and adequate, warranting no interference. It was further contended that the father and siblings of the deceased did not fall within the category of dependents, and therefore, 1/3rd of the income had to be deducted towards personal expenses.
Reasoning of the Court
Upon perusal of the award, the Court noted that the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-, the Court observed that the Tribunal ought to have notionally assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.7,000/-, as the deceased was 26 years old at the time of the accident, and an addition of 40% must be made to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects. As a result, the Bench fixed the income of fixed at Rs.14,000/-.
With regard to the contention of the Respondent that the father and siblings of the deceased would not come under the purview of ‘dependants’, the Court observed, “…it is to be noted that such a contention was first raised only at this appellate stage. The said contention was not even raised in the written statement filed by the respondent. However, I am cognizant that strict principles of pleadings are not applicable in motor accident claim cases. However, only when the contentions are specific, the petitioner could effectively prosecute his petition and adduce necessary evidence. Moreover, in the case at hand, no cross-objection or appeal has been filed by the respondent, the insurance company, challenging the finding of the tribunal that all the petitioners are dependants of the deceased and hence 1/4th of the income is to be deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased.”
The Bench further noted that it could not be said that the siblings of the deceased would not qualify as dependants.
“Admittedly, the 4th petitioner is the younger sister and the 5th petitioner is the younger brother of the deceased. Evidently, both of them were unmarried and residing under the same roof with their deceased brother and parents. As I have already stated, dependency does not mean financial dependency only. The emotional and physical support that would have been rendered by the deceased to his siblings if he had been alive persuades me to treat the unmarried and younger siblings of the deceased as his dependents. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that any of the siblings were earning members, or capable of maintaining themselves. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the decision of the tribunal to treat the father and siblings of the deceased, as dependants is quite appropriate and justifiable. Consequently, only 1/4th of the income can legally be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the total number of dependents is five”, the Bench added.
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation amount by a further mount of Rs. 7,22,600/- along with 7.5% interest, and directed the Respondent to deposit the amount before the Tribunal.
Cause Title: Chaitanya & Ors. v. New India General Respondent (Neutral Citation No. 2025:KER:23175)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates K.V. Reshmi, J. Deepti
Respondent: Advocate Lal K Joseph
Click here to read/download Judgment