Major Unmarried Sister Who Was Residing With Deceased Entitled To Motor Accident Compensation Towards Loss Of Dependency: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the third respondent/insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.

The Single Bench of Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held, “However, insofar as the second claimant is concerned, the evidence on record establishes that she, being a spinster, was residing with the deceased and was wholly dependent on her. Therefore, the second claimant is entitled to be treated as a dependent of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the second claimant is entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency. Since it is found that the second claimant was a dependent of the deceased, the question regarding compensation under the head of loss of estate to the other siblings also does not arise.”

Senior Advocate Mathews Jacob represented the Appellant, while Advocate M.V.Thamban represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The claim petition was filed by the siblings of the deceased Santhamma, who lost her life in a road traffic accident that occurred on October 4, 2014, seeking compensation on account of the death of their sister. It was the case of the claimants that while the deceased was crossing the road through the zebra line at Krishnapuram junction along the Kollam-Alappuzha National Highway, a scooter ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit her, whereby she sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000. The Respondents, who were the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The tribunal held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs 6,89,400. The respondent insurer thus came up in appeal, challenging the notional monthly income fixed by the tribunal as well as the compensation awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the claimants were all major siblings of the deceased and the deceased was a spinster as well as a pensioner. As per the Treasury Passbook, the income of the deceased Santhamma was Rs 6,285. As per the Bench, the tribunal, in its discretion, fixed the monthly income at Rs 7000. “In the absence of any other document, Ext.A18 has to be relied upon to prove the income of the deceased; and since as per Ext.A18 Treasury Passbook, the income is 6,285/-, the tribunal ought to have taken only 6,285/- as the income of the deceased”, it added.

Considering that there was no case for the claimants that the deceased was having any income other than a pension, and no appeal was filed challenging the fixation of the income, the Bench fixed the notional income of the deceased at ₹6,285. As regards the compensation towards loss of dependency, the Bench held that all the claimants were major siblings of the deceased. In order to prove dependency, evidence was adduced by PW1, who was the second claimant as well as one of the sisters of the deceased. She had deposed that she was also a spinster and was dependent on the deceased for her day-to-day living expenses.

The Bench noted that the second claimant had stated that her life was completely dependent on the deceased and in the cross-examination, she stated that everyone was dependent on the deceased. “However, only the second claimant has given evidence before the tribunal and the other claimants did not mount the box”, it added. The Bench was of the view that unless proper evidence is adduced to establish that the other claimants were dependent on the deceased, they cannot be treated as dependents and, consequently, are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. As per the Bench, the second claimant was entitled to be treated as a dependent of the deceased.

The Bench added 10% future prospects and held that the notional income would be 6,913.5 (6285 + 628.5) for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency.

The Bench further clarified that, since the deceased was a spinster, as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), the income to be deducted towards personal and living expenses would be one-half and not one-third. Since the deceased was 57 years old at the time of the accident, the Bench adopted the multiplier of 9. The Bench held that the second claimant would be entitled to get a total compensation of 3,73,329 towards loss of dependency.

Thus, allowing the appeal in part, the Bench held the claimants entitled to a total compensation of Rs 5,08,329. “The second claimant alone shall be entitled to the compensation amount awarded towards loss of dependency with interest thereon”, it ordered.

Cause Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Devaki (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:38133)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Mathews Jacob, P. Jacob Mathew

Respondent: Advocates M.V.Thamban, R.Reji, Arun Bose, Thara Thamban, B.Bipin

Click here to read/download Order