Recently, the Supreme Court, while adjudicating an appeal concerning the partial reduction and dismissal of a compensation claim under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, held that the assumption of non-dependency cannot override the potential for future dependency. At the same time, the Court clarified that although a married daughter may qualify as a legal representative of the deceased, she would not be entitled to loss of dependency compensation unless it is established that she was financially dependent on the deceased.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed back when the deceased met with a road accident caused by the negligent turn of a Rajasthan Roadways bus. Hence, her married daughter and elderly mother sought compensation. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the claim to the extent of Rs. 15,97,000/- with interest, holding the driver, owner, and insurer jointly liable. The Rajasthan High Court reduced the compensation of the daughter and reduced the claim of the mother on the ground of lack of dependency. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, both claimants challenged the decision of the High Court before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of Appellant:
The Appellant submitted that the High Court erred in the interpretation given in Manjuri Bera & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr (2007), as both the claimants were dependent on the deceased. It was contended that despite being married, the daughter has lived with her mother and was financially supported by her. It was further argued that the mother was financially completely dependent on the deceased due to her old age and lack of income.
Contentions of Respondent:
On the other hand, the insurer challenged the order, arguing that a married daughter cannot be considered a dependent and is therefore entitled only to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was also contended that the mother is not a legal heir and, consequently, not entitled to any compensation.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Court expounded that “once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother, has now ceased.”
“Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the Claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased”, added the Court
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “The obligation of a child to maintain their parent in old age is as much of a duty as the obligation of a parent to maintain their child during minority. The deceased, being the only provider, would be assumed to be fulfilling this obligation, further reinforcing Appellant No. 2’s status as a dependent. Therefore, the untimely demise of the deceased may create difficulties for Appellant No. 2 going forward, resulting in hardship. Even if it is assumed that Appellant No. 2 was not dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident, the possibility of future dependency cannot be disregarded.”
The Court opined that the High Court correctly relied on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Manjuri Bera & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, (2007) and held, “Appellant No.1, as the legal representative of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as liability under the same does not cease to exist in the absence of dependency”.
“However, the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s award as it relates to Appellant No. 2, the mother of the deceased. Appellant No. 2 was aged about 70 years of age at the time of the accident resulting in the death of her daughter, the deceased, and was solely dependent on the deceased as she lived with her and had no independent income, there is no evidence on record to rebut the same”, added the Bench.
While referring to the decision laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) and Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. DTC (2009), the Court found the awarded compensation inadequate.
The decision of the Court:
The Top Court partly allowed the appeals, upholding the limited compensation of ₹50,000/ to the married daughter under Section 140 of the MV Act due to a lack of proven dependency. However, it set aside the High Court’s denial of compensation to the deceased’s mother. Recognising her as a dependent, the Court enhanced her compensation to ₹19,22,356/-, affirming the legal and moral duty of children to support aged parents.
Case Title: Deep Shikha & Anr Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(S). 22265-22266 Of 2018
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Advocate of Appellants: AOR Abhishek Gupta
Advocate of Respondent: AORs Dr. Meera Agarwal and Samir Malik, and Adv Ramesh Chandra Mishra
Read judgment @ latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
