“Dependency Does Not Necessarily Mean Only Financial Dependency”: Kerala High Court Enhances Compensation, Recognises Emotional and Physical Support Owed to Family
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Single Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian, adjudicated an appeal concerning the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. The appeal arose from a decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in relation to the death of Selin, who sustained fatal injuries in a road accident. The Court found that the compensation originally awarded to the dependants of the deceased was inadequate and proceeded to reassess the claim based on established legal principles.
The deceased, Selin, died due to injuries sustained in a motor accident on 30.07.2015. At the time of the accident, he was traveling from Kozhikode to Wayanad in a car bearing registration No. KL-05-AC-1786. The vehicle, driven by the second respondent, collided with a tree due to alleged rash and negligent driving. Selin was admitted to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, but died on 05.08.2015.
The petitioners, including the wife, parents, sister, and brother of the deceased, filed a claim under OP(MV) No. 1443/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The tribunal found the driver negligent and held the insurer liable, awarding a compensation of Rs. 17,67,700/- with 8% interest per annum. The petitioners appealed the award, seeking enhancement.
The primary contention raised by the petitioners was that the tribunal erroneously assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/-, despite the claim that he earned Rs. 20,000/- from operating a mobile shop. The appellants argued that the assessment failed to account for loss of future prospects and dependency adequately. In contrast, the respondent insurer contended that the tribunal's award was fair and warranted no interference.
The appellants produced documentary evidence marked as Exts. A1 to A8. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The third respondent-insurer filed a written statement disputing only the quantum of compensation.
The Court noted that, although the petitioners claimed a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- for the deceased, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. However, considering the date of the accident in 2015 and relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Court stated: "the tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- notionally."
Further applying the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662] regarding future prospects, the Court recorded: "an addition of 40% has to be made to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects". Consequently, the monthly income was fixed at Rs. 14,000/-.
After deducting 1/4th for personal expenses, considering five dependants, the monthly contribution to the family was determined as Rs. 10,500/-. Using the multiplier of 17, applicable as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the Court calculated: "petitioners are entitled to get an amount of Rs.21,42,000/- [Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 17] as compensation under the head of loss of dependency".
Since the tribunal had already awarded Rs. 14,99,400/- under this head, the Court held that an additional Rs. 6,42,600/- was due.
On the issue of dependants, the respondent insurer raised a contention that the father and siblings of the deceased should not be considered dependants, and hence 1/3rd deduction should be applied. The Court rejected this contention, observing: "the said contention was not even raised in the written statement filed by the respondent" and noted that "strict principles of pleadings are not applicable in motor accident claim cases".
The Court further remarked: "a father will share the responsibilities with his major son" and that "dependency does not necessarily mean only financial dependency". Regarding the deceased's siblings, the Court stated: "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... as his dependents".
The tribunal had awarded Rs. 40,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of consortium only to the wife of the deceased. The Court found this inadequate and awarded an additional Rs. 40,000/- each to the parents. It stated: "resultantly, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium." Since consortium had been awarded to the wife and now the parents, the Court observed that compensation for love and affection was only due to the siblings. Accordingly, the tribunal’s existing award of Rs. 25,000/- under this head was adjusted towards the siblings.
The appeal was allowed by the Court, enhancing the compensation by Rs. 7,22,600/- (Rupees seven lakhs twenty-two thousand six hundred only), comprising Rs. 6,42,600/- under the head of loss of dependency and Rs. 80,000/- under the head of loss of consortium.
The Court directed: "The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Smt. K.V. Reshmi, Smt. J. Deepti
For the Respondent: Lal K. Joseph
Case Title: Chaithanaya & Ors v. The New India General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:23175
Case Number: MACA No. 2151 of 2018
Bench: Justice Jobin Sebastian
[Read/Download order]
