In a motor accident claims appeal filed before the Kerala High Court by the New India Assurance Company Limited (NIACL) to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara (MACT), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen partly allowed the appeal, revised the total compensation, and only allowed the deceased person’s major unmarried sister to receive the compensation towards loss of dependency.
The claim petition before the MACT was filed by the siblings of the deceased, who lost her life in a road traffic accident that took place on 04-10-2014. On the day of the accident, the deceased was crossing the road through the zebra line when a scooter being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit her, causing her death. Being the legal heirs of the deceased, the claimants approached MACT claiming a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. MACT held that the accident took place due to the driver’s negligence and awarded Rs. 6,89,400/- as compensation with 8% interest.
Aggrieved, NIACL filed the present appeal to challenge the notional monthly income of the deceased and the compensation awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency. It was contended that since the claimants were major siblings of the deceased, who resided separately with their respective families, they were not dependent on the deceased and therefore, were not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
The Court noted that the deceased was a spinster as well as a pensioner with a monthly income of Rs. 6285/-. It was said that in the absence of any other documents, the deceased person’s monthly income ought to have been taken only as Rs. 6285/-. The Court was inclined to refix the notional income as it was not the case of the claimants that the deceased had any other source of income apart from the pension.
Further, the Court stated that unless proper evidence was adduced to establish that the other claimants were dependent on the deceased, they could not be treated as dependents and as a consequence, they were not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. However, the Court noted that the second claimant, being a spinster, was residing with the deceased and was completely dependent on her. Hence, the Court held that the second claimant was entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency.
The Court noted that while assessing compensation for loss of dependency, the MACT deducted only one-third of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and while referring to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], stated that the income to be deducted towards personal and living expenses was one-half and not one-third.
Upon recalculating the loss of dependency, the Court held that the second claimant would be entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 3,73,329/- i.e. Rs. 1,81,071/- less from what the MACT had awarded. The Court also noted that the MACT had awarded a penal interest at 12%, which was not sustainable as per the Supreme Court’s decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur [2004 (2) SCC 370], and set it aside.
Thus, the Court partly allowed the appeal, revising the total compensation to Rs. 5,08,329/- with 8% interest and clarified that only the second claimant would be entitled to receive the compensation amount towards loss of dependency with interest, but all claimants would be entitled to get the balance compensation. NIACL was directed to deposit the total compensation within two months.
