Karnataka High Court: Residing Together Not Mandatory to Claim Loss of Dependency | Denial of Compensation to Deceased’s Husband Set Aside, Enhanced Award Granted
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi, Single Bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani allowed in part a claimant's appeal seeking enhanced compensation in a motor vehicle accident case, modifying the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Court held that the denial of compensation towards loss of dependency based on allegations of marital separation was not legally tenable and directed the insurer to pay enhanced compensation with interest.
The matter arose from a motor accident that occurred on 07.07.2021 on NH-50, Vijayapura – Hunagund road near KSRTC Bus stand, Nidagundi. The deceased, Smt. Yallawwa, was employed in highway repair work and died due to injuries sustained when a lorry bearing registration number GJ-03/BW-6905, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck her. Despite receiving medical treatment, she succumbed to her injuries.
Her husband, Ningappa, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the lorry, alleging loss of dependency and seeking compensation.
The owner of the lorry, though served with notice, remained absent and was placed ex parte. The claim was contested only by the insurer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, which denied all material allegations, including the occurrence, negligence, and dependency. The insurer further contended that the deceased was residing separately from the claimant and that there was a violation of policy terms.
The Tribunal framed issues including whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry; whether the claimant was a dependent; and whether there was any violation of policy conditions. The claimant examined himself and two other witnesses, while the insurer examined one official and marked documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle, leading to the death of Smt. Yallawwa. It held the insurer liable and awarded compensation under conventional heads alone: Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000 for funeral and obsequies, and Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, totaling Rs.70,000. It denied compensation under loss of dependency, accepting the insurer's argument that the claimant was not dependent on the deceased.
The Tribunal placed reliance on a complaint (Ex. P2) filed by the deceased’s brother, who stated that the claimant had remarried due to the deceased being unable to conceive and that the deceased was residing separately. Despite the brother's deposition clarifying that the deceased and claimant were residing in the same village and that he was illiterate, the Tribunal rejected the claim for dependency.
Aggrieved by this denial, the claimant filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
The Court considered the limited issue of whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation.
It recorded, "Occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle leading to death of claimant’s wife-Smt.Yellawwa, vehicle being covered with insurance and insurer being liable to pay compensation are not in dispute." The only issue before the Court was the Tribunal’s refusal to award compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
The judgment analyzed the Tribunal's findings and observed that it had referred to the deposition of PW.1 (the claimant) and PW.3 (the brother of the deceased) who clarified that the police had wrongly mentioned separation in the complaint and confirmed that there was no divorce. The Court noted that PW.3 "denied all other suggestions made in cross-examination."
It noted that the Tribunal also relied upon the deposition of the insurer's witness RW.1, who reiterated the content of the complaint. However, the Court stated, "From above, it is observed that there is no dispute about relationship of husband and wife between claimant and deceased and that there was no severance of said relationship."
The Court further referred to precedents cited by the Tribunal, namely National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premjeet Singh and Others (2017 ACJ 1784) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and Others (2019 ACJ 1368), and clarified that these cases merely explained the scope of 'legal representatives' in motor accident claims.
Justice Hosmani stated, "Courts have time and again held that there cannot be restrictive interpretation of word ‘dependents’." He added that "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."
The Court observed that the insurer relied solely on the complaint given by the deceased's brother, who was examined as PW.3 and had denied knowledge of the complaint’s contents. It noted, "Merely on ground that he has signed complaint, there cannot be presumption about he being literate. When Insurer did not confront him with signature and elicited admission either contradicting his assertion or falsifying it, same has to be accepted as sufficient explanation."
It further stated, "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." The Court stated that nothing was elicited in cross-examination regarding remarriage.
The Court held that the Tribunal's denial of compensation towards loss of dependency was contrary to law.
Regarding the deceased's income, the Court noted that no documentary evidence was provided to prove the claimed income of Rs.20,000/month. In the absence of proof, it adopted the notional income of Rs.14,250/month for the year 2021, as per Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) guidelines.
It further observed that since the deceased was self-employed, 25% was to be added towards future prospects. After a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 14 (based on her age of 42), the Court calculated the compensation for loss of dependency as Rs.14,96,250.
The Court allowed the appeal in part and passed the following directions:
"Appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award dated 28.04.2023 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XII, Vijayapura, in MVC no.110/2022 is modified."
It declared, "Claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.14,96,250/- with interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization."
The Court further ordered, "Insurer is held liable to pay same and is directed to deposit same with interest before Tribunal within six weeks."
It directed, "On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release 50% of amount by keeping 50% in deposit for three years."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri Basavaraj R. Math, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi
Case Title: Ningappa v. Prabhatbhai & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-K:3841
Case Number: MFA No. 202819 of 2023
Bench: Justice Ravi V Hosmani
