Men Also Crumble, Look For Child's Support: Kerala High Court Holds Father As Son's Dependent For Determining Compensation Under MV Act

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that a father could also be treated as 'dependent' on his son to determine the personal expenses of the deceased son, while computing the compensation to be awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. 

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. noted that while the dependancy of the father upon his son after the latter's wedding would be limited, that by itself would not disentitle the father from being treated as one of the dependants of the deceased in order to determine the deductions to be made towards personal expenses.

"This is because, when the years pass, and advanced age weakens the earning capacity of the father, or various ailments, age-related or other, start affecting the mental and physical ability of the father, the son is supposed to or expected to come forward and support him. Such support from the son is something which a father can reasonably look forward to," the Court observed. 

It went on to add that since lifetime expenses are to be taken into account while computing the different percentages of deductions based on the number of dependents, the expenses which the deceased used to incur at the time of the death as well as the expenses he is likely to incur in future, had he been alive, ought to be taken into account. 

"While determining the said aspect, the expenses he is likely to incur for looking after his father should also be considered. Such an aspect requires to be necessarily one of the criteria for the determination of the rate of deduction, more particularly because, in our country, social security schemes (sponsored by the government or otherwise) are confined to a very small section of our society, and the majority of the population has to find out their own resources to tide over the exigencies in the old age. Therefore, the support of their children at such difficult times and the duties of the children to fulfil such requirements are realities which cannot be ignored in our societal set-up. Since the provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act relating to compensation are part of social welfare legislation, adjudication of the questions relating to the same, cannot be made by ignoring such social standards and realities," the Court said. 

Importantly, Justice Rahman also criticised the insurer's argument that while a father could not be treated as dependant upon his son, a mother could be considered so. Remarking that such a view is improper for the same leads to discrimination, the Court elaborated,

"...it creates unwarranted discrimination and is part of a patriarchal point of view where the women are treated as weaker, and the men are treated as always strong, i.e. someone who will always be capable of taking care of themselves without the support of anyone. Men also do crumble down and look forward to the support of others, particularly from their children, at various stages of life for various reasons such as financial exigencies and setbacks, physical and mental ailments, loss of earning capacity as the age advances, etc. Thus, not treating the father of the deceased as a dependent, at least to determine the rate of deduction to be made from the income of the deceased son towards his personal expenses, would be an injustice. Therefore, I am of the view that the father is to be treated as a person dependent upon the son for that purpose". 

The Court was considering an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, granting compensation amounting to Rs. 36,00,040/- to the dependant wife, daughter, and parents of the deceased who lost his life in a motor accident. The Tribunal had fixed the deceased's monthly income as Rs. 16,220/-, while awarding the compensation.

The counsel for the appellant insurance company argued that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency was on the higher side, and claimed that although the respondents claimed that the deceased was working as a Scaffold Worker, with a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-, no reliable evidence was adduced to substantiate the same.

The Court noted the deceased's employer's averment that the latter used to pay an amount of Rs. 700/- per day for 14 days in a month towards the salary of the deceased. It was thus of the view that the computation by the Tribunal was incorrect. 

In any case, the Court observed that since the deceased was a skilled employee, a slightly higher monthly income could be taken, and fixed the same at Rs 13,000/-.

Rejecting the argument raised by the appellant that the father of the deceased could not be treated as a dependant, the Court affirmed the number of dependants of the deceased as four, and held that the deduction of 1/4th made by the Tribunal could not be interfered with. 

The Court however modified the amount awarded by the Tribunal, after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'. It however, enhanced the amount to be awarded under the head of loss of consortium by Rs. 1.2 Lakhs. 

The total compensation awarded to the respondents was thus modified as Rs. 29,84,600/-.

The appeal was thus disposed. 

Counsel for the Appellant: Advocates K.S. Santhi, and Latha Susan Cherian

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Pratheesh P., and Reny Anto

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 587