Married Daughter & Parents Of Deceased Entitled To Compensation As Dependents Under Motor Vehicles Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that a married daughter and the parents of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as dependents of the deceased.Justice C.S Dias while dismissing an appeal filed by the insurance company opined:"It would be preposterous to accept the contention if the counsel for the appellant that a...
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that a married daughter and the parents of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as dependents of the deceased.
Justice C.S Dias while dismissing an appeal filed by the insurance company opined:
"It would be preposterous to accept the contention if the counsel for the appellant that a 25-year-old daughter would be no longer dependent on her 49-year-old mother because she was given in marriage. The bond between a mother and a daughter is eternal."
So far as parents of the deceased are concerned, the Court held that since the deceased was obligated to maintain them in terms of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, therefore, the parents will also be entitled to seek compensation under the claim petition.
The Court also found that dependency has no relevance in a claim application filed under Section 163 A of the Act.
"Keeping in mind that the enactment is a beneficial and social welfare legislation, it impels me to hold that dependency is only a criteria for a legal representative to claim compensation for loss of dependency under Section 166 of the Act, 1988, and is not the 'be all end all' criteria to claim compensation under the other pecuniary, non-pecuniary and conventional heads of compensation."
Factual Background:
A woman namely Sreedevi was mowed down to death by a vehicle pursuant to which her daughters and her parents moved the Motor Vehicles Tribunal claiming compensation from the insurer of the vehicle.
In the claim petition, it was asserted that the deceased was the breadwinner of the family and that the respondents were dependent on her.
Despite objections from the insurer, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition holding that the respondents were legal representatives and dependents of the deceased.
Aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurer preferred an appeal.
Relevant Contentions:
Advocate Deepa George appearing for the appellant fortified her case submitting that in a claim under Section 166 of the Act, it is imperative for the claimants to plead and prove that they were the dependents of the deceased.
She further argued that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the married daughter and parents of the deceased were dependent on her was erroneous, and asserted that only the unmarried daughter was a dependent.
Hence, it was the appellant's case that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of dependency only for the unmarried daughter, that too after deducting one half of the compensation towards the personal living expenses of the deceased as held by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121].
Advocate Manasy.T representing the respondents contended, for the sole reason that one of the daughters was recently married, her entitlement to compensation for loss of dependency cannot be denied.
Arguing that there was no error or illegality in the impugned award, the respondents sough for the appeal to be dismissed.
Advocate Latha Susan Cherian was appointed as the Amicus Curiae in the matter.
Observations:
(i) Is dependency a relevant criterion in a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? Should a dependent be a legal representative of the deceased to claim compensation under Section 166?
To answer these questions, the Court traced the legislative history relating to claims for compensation for actionable wrongs.
It noted that the expression 'legal representative' was not defined in either Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 or the Act of 1988 despite the Law Commission's repeated recommendation in its 85th and 149th reports.
Similarly, the Bench recalled the Supreme Court decision in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & another [(1987) 3 SCC 234] where it was held that a legal representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.
"All these aspects throw light to the fact that the Parliament has consciously refrained from using the expression 'dependent', despite the recommendations of the Law Commission, instead has permitted the legal representatives to move and claim compensation."
It was also found that the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 defines the expression 'legal representative' as a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased.
The Court further opined that the Act being a beneficial and social welfare legislation should be construed to mean that dependency is not the ultimate criteria to claim compensation.
"Keeping in mind that the enactment is a beneficial and social welfare legislation impels me to hold that dependency is only a criteria for a legal representative to claim compensation for loss of dependency under Section 166 of the Act, 1988, and is not the 'be all end all' criteria to claim compensation under the other pecuniary, non-pecuniary and conventional heads of compensation."
Moreover, the Court agreed with the contention of the respondents that the proceeding before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal is a summary proceeding and unless there is evidence in support of such pleading that the claimant is not a legal representative and therefore the claim petition be dismissed as not maintainable, no such plea can be raised at a subsequent stage and that also through a writ petition.
On these grounds, it was held that dependency has no relevance in an application filed under Section 163 A of Act, 1988.
(ii) Are parents and married daughters entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as dependents of the deceased?
The respondents had produced the family relationship certificate proving that they were dependent on the deceased.
In Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr [(2007) 10 SCC 643], the Supreme Court had held:
"...the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only."
In the case at hand, there was no dispute that the respondents were the legal representatives of the deceased falling within Rule 2 (k) of the Kerala Rules, 1989.
The Court thereby noted that exclusion of a married daughter/sister/brother from the claim petition, altogether would be opposed to the object of the Act.
"It would be preposterous to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that a 25-year-old daughter would be no longer dependent on her 49-year-old mother because she was given in marriage. The bond between a mother and a daughter is eternal."
Furthermore, it was observed by the Bench that even if dependency was a relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, financial dependency was not the 'ark of the covenant'.
"Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of money."
Similarly, it was noted that the septuagenarian parents of the deceased had started living with her after the demise of her husband.
The deceased being the only earning member in the family, she used to maintain her parents as evidenced by family relationship certificate, thereby qualifying as dependents.
"The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, casts a statutory duty to maintain a senior citizen, who is unable to maintain himself. Therefore, even if Sreedevi had neglected to maintain the respondents 3 and 4, they were legally entitled to an order of maintenance under the above statute. In view of the clinching materials on record and the well neigh settled law, I also confirm the finding of the Tribunal that the respondents 3 and 4 were the dependents of Sreedevi," the order stated.
Thus, on a comprehensive re-appreciation of the materials and law, the Court confirmed the finding of the Tribunal that the married daughter as well as the parents of the deceased were dependents and thereby entitled to compensation for loss of dependency.
Upon finding that there was no error or illegality in the impugned award passed by Tribunal warranting any interference by the Court, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Shalumol