Deceased's Major Children Not Having Independent Income May Be Considered As Dependents For Motor Accident Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the children of the deceased who are majors can be considered dependents in a Motor Accident Claim if the children were able to prove that they had no independent income as of the date of the deceased. The Court said:

"Now, coming to the status of the petitioners 2 and 3, they are in better footing than sister or brother of the deceased. They are no other than the sons of the deceased, who are aged about 24 years and 23 years respectively. When P.W.1 testified that on account of death of their father, they are not able to continue the agricultural operations or business or milk selling, no contra theory is suggested on behalf of the contesting second respondent. The second respondent did not probablize any theory that either as on the date of death of deceased or subsequent thereto petitioners 2 and 3 were having their independent income."

The order was passed by Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu in a batch of Motor Accident Appeal. One appeal was preferred by the claimants seeking an increased compensation and the other was filed by the insurance company contending that the compensation amount was unjust and needed to be reduced.

The claimants pleaded that the lower court had erred in only considering the wife of the deceased as a claimant and reducing the compensation amount by half. It was contended that the two sons of the deceased were first-class heirs and had despite being majors had no income of their own and deserved a share in the compensation awarded for the untimely death of their father.

They prayed that considering the Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another judgment, since the claimants were more than 3 in number, the compensation amount may be reduced only by one-third, as opposed to the original half.

The insurance company on the other hand contended that the amount sanctioned by the lower court was unfounded and deserved to be reduced.

In response to the plea raised by the claimants, the Insurance Company contended that the benefits of compensation cannot be extended to major sons.

Relying on the Sarala Verma judgment, the Bench noted that even bachelor siblings of the deceased were held entitled to seek compensation for the untimely death of a deceased they were dependent on. Drawing an inference from the legal principle established in the above-mentioned judgment. Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu held:

"The finding of facts recorded by the tribunal is without reasons. The evidence on record amply proves the fact that apart from the first petitioner, who is wife of deceased, petitioners 2 and 3, who are sons of deceased and who are residing along with deceased, are also dependants. Of course, it is a matter of discretion of the tribunal to make reasonable apportionment of compensation in the given situation."

The Bench also noted that the respondents had placed no evidence on record to counter the 'no-income' plea of the claimants.

With that explanation, the Bench thought it just and proper to deduct only 1/3rd amount as 'personal and living expenses' instead of half.

"Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the tribunal erred in deducting half of the probable income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and proper deduction should be one-third because the petitioners are three in number," it was said.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants was allowed.

The compensation amount was enhanced from Rs.15,32,500/- to Rs. 20,20,000/-.

Case title: Mukala Lakshmi vs. Bhumi Naga Satyanarayana

Case Number: MACMA 996/19

.Counsel for the Appellant(S):SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY

Counsel for the Respondent(S): VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

Click Here To Read/Download Order