Residing Together Cannot Be Added As Additional Condition To Be Established By Husband Claiming Compensation In Motor Vehicle Accident Claim: Karnataka High Court
|In a motor vehicle accident claim petition, the insurer took the plea that the husband of the deceased has not been residing with her, thus, the husband is not entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency.
The Karnataka High Court observed that residing together cannot be added as additional conditions to be established by the husband in order to be entitled for compensation. The burden to establish separation would be on the insurer.
An appeal was filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The Bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani observed, “Residing together cannot be added as additional condition to be established by claimant in order to be entitled for compensation. Burden to establish separation would be on Insurer…In any case, husband would be Class-I heir and dependent on wife. There is absolutely no material to establish or indicate that claimant had contracted second marriage. Nothing has been elicited in this regard during cross-examination of claimant. Under such circumstances, denial of compensation towards loss of dependency by Tribunal would be contrary to law and compensation has to be computed under said head.”
Advocate Basavaraj R. Math represented the Appellants, while Advocate Preeti Patil Melkundi represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
The husband/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the owner and insurer of the lorry. The wife of the claimant was hit but the driver of the lorry, who was alleged to be driving in rash and negligent manner.
The claim was contended by the insurer but the matter was proceeded ex parte against the owner of the lorry. It was submitted that the claimant was not residing with his deceased wife, thereby, he was not entitled to compensation.
It was contended by the Insurance Company that the deceased had married claimant about 20 years ago. On ground that she was unable to conceive, the claimant had remarried and since then, the deceased was residing separately. The deceased was earning a livelihood by Coolie work.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that it was not in dispute that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry. Further, the fact that the vehicle was covered with insurance and the insurer would be liable to pay compensation was also not in dispute.
The Court noted that the only ground on which appeal was filed is error committed by the Tribunal denying compensation towards loss of dependency.
“Courts have time and again held that there cannot be restrictive interpretation of word ‘dependents’. When award of compensation towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is not challenged by Insurer and compensation towards spousal consortium is also accepted, it would not lie in mouth of Insurer to contend that claimant would not be entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency”, the Court said.
Thus, the High Court calculated the compensation of Rs.14,96,250/- towards ‘loss of dependency’.
Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed and the insurer was held liable to pay the same.
Cause Title: Ningappa V. Prabhatbhai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-K:2841)