[Motor Accident Claims] Dependency Does Not Always Mean Financial Dependency: Kerala HC Upholds Compensation For Father & Siblings Of Deceased

The Kerala High Court observed that the father and the younger siblings of the deceased are also entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency over the death of the deceased, who was only 26 years old at time of the motor vehicle accident.While upholding the finding of the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the father and siblings of the deceased, Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that dependency does not necessarily mean financial dependency only. The Court stated that merely because the father of the deceased was only 50 years old does not mean that he was not a dependent on his major son. Court said, “At such an advanced age, a person would naturally look forward to his son for support, care, and future well-being. Consequently, the loss of a major son would significantly impact his expectations, emotional stability, and overall quality of life. Obviously, a father will share the responsibilities with his major son. Furthermore, dependency does not necessarily mean only financial dependency. Therefore, merely because the father of the deceased was aged only 50 years, it could not be said that the father is not a dependent.”Further the Court stated that the younger brother and sister of the deceased would also be dependent on him for emotional and physical support. It said, “Evidently, both of them were unmarried and residing under the same roof with their deceased brother and parents. As I have already stated, dependency does not mean financial dependency only. The emotional and physical support that would have been rendered by the deceased to his siblings if he had been alive persuades me to treat the unmarried and younger siblings of the deceased as his dependents. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that any of the siblings were earning members, or capable of maintaining themselves.”The deceased was travelling in a car which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in an accident. The Tribunal determined that the accident leading to the deceased's death was caused by the driver's rash and negligent driving. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered for a compensation of rupees 17,67,700.Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred this motor accidents claims appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The claimants are wife, father, mother and two younger siblings of the deceased. The claimants submitted that quantum of compensation was meagre and insufficient to compensate for the loss of the bereaved family of the deceased. The High Court noted that the Tribunal assessed monthly income of rupees seven thousand only under head of loss of dependency. It noted that the accident took place on 2015 and that the deceased was only 26 years old and was working in mobile repair shop. Relying upon Ramachandrappa v Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court fixed the monthly income as rupees fourteen thousand. The Court further stated that the father and the younger siblings of the deceased were also dependent on him. The Court noted that compensation under loss of consortium was only awarded to the wife of the deceased. The Court ordered that the loss of consortium has to be awarded to the parents of the deceased also. Court added, “The tribunal omitted to award compensation under the head of loss of consortium in favour of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners irrespective of the fact that they are the parents of the deceased. Their close relationship and bondage with the deceased would certainly entitle them to get compensation under the head of loss of consortium as well.”The Court also held that the younger siblings are entitled to compensation under the head of love and affection. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and granted an enhanced compensation of rupees 7,22,600, increasing the initial compensation from rupees 17,67,700.Counsel for Claimants: Advocates K V Reshmi, J DeepthiCounsel for Insurance Company: Advocate Lal K JosephCase Title: Chaithanya v The New India General Ins.Co.Ltd.Case No: MACA NO. 2151 OF 2018 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 210Click here to read/download Order

[Motor Accident Claims] Dependency Does Not Always Mean Financial Dependency: Kerala HC Upholds Compensation For Father & Siblings Of Deceased

Tellmy Jolly

Tags