New Delhi: “Married, earning or separately residing” family members cannot be automatically denied motor accident compensation merely because they were not financially dependent on the deceased, Delhi High Court observed, holding that a contrary approach would be inconsistent with the “realities of Indian family structures” and that a lack of day-to-day dependency does not mean an absence of financial loss.
The observations came while deciding cross-appeals filed by United India Insurance Company and Savita, challenging compensation awarded for the deaths of her father, Chamanlal (56), and sister, Meenu (23), in a road accident on Aug 31, 2015. Savita, who had married in 2002 and was living separately with her husband, was the sole surviving daughter and legal representative of the deceased. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, treating her as a non-dependent legal representative, awarded only one-third of the notional loss of estate: Rs 9.3 lakh for Meenu’s death and Rs 13.2 lakh for Chamanlal’s death. The award for Meenu’s death was increased by Rs 5.1 lakh to Rs 14.4 lakh, while that for Chamanlal’s death was enhanced by Rs 7.1 lakh to Rs 20.2 lakh.
“Just because somebody is not dependent on a daily basis on somebody, it cannot be that there is no loss which is incurred and for which they ought to be compensated,” the court said, adding that an insurer or the driver and owner of a vehicle cannot be “completely absolved” from paying compensation merely because the deceased’s family structure does not fit a conventional category of dependency. Rejecting the insurer’s contention, the high court held that dependency cannot be confined to “discrete slots” of dependent and non-dependent family members. Instead, the “nature of dependency” must be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case. Recognising the shared “family income pot” and the financial support exchanged within Indian families, the court treated Savita as partially dependent, applied a 50% deduction towards personal expenses for both deceased persons, and enhanced the compensation.
Savita sought enhancement of the compensation While the insurance company argued that a married daughter living separately could not claim loss of dependency.