Liability To Pay Motor Accident Compensation To LRs Of Deceased Victim Doesn’t Cease Even In The Absence Of Full Dependency: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court observed that even in absence of full dependency of the Claimant on the deceased, the liability to pay Motor Accident compensation to the legal representatives does not cease.
The Court upheld the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mumbai, which awarded compensation to the dependents of a deceased accident victim. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant) challenged the MACT’s decision on two primary grounds: the notional income assigned to the deceased and the entitlement of the deceased's parents to claim compensation.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker observed, “In absence of full dependency of the Claimant on the deceased, the liability to pay compensation to the legal representatives does not cease and the cause of the action of the legal representative to file Claim Petition would still survive.”
Advocate Devendranath S. Joshi appeared for the appellant, while Advocate T.J. Mendon represented the respondents.
The deceased was fatally injured by an autorickshaw which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The victim succumbed to his injuries, following which the MACT held the autorickshaw driver negligent and awarded a compensation among the deceased's wife, daughter, son, and parents.
The appellant (Insurance Company) had challenged the award of the MACT that allowed the Claim Petition of the dependents of the deceased. The Insurance Company challenged the claim awarded arguing that the parents of the deceased were staying at a different place and were not dependent on the deceased and, therefore, were not entitled to claim of compensation.
The Insurance Company argued that since the parents resided in a different village and were not financially dependent on the deceased, they were not entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act). However, the High Court referred the Supreme Court's judgment in Montford Brothers of St Gabriel v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014), which held that every legal representative had the right to claim compensation, irrespective of dependency status.
The Court explained that in the absence of full dependency of the claimant on the deceased, the liability to pay compensation to the legal representatives does not cease and the cause of the action of the legal representative to file the Claim Petition would still survive. “It is for the Tribunal to consider the evidence as to the extent of dependency of the Claimant on the deceased” the Bench added.
“In the ordinary circumstances in the Indian Social system, parents are dependent on their child to take care of them in their old age, irrespective of the fact that they would be staying in the villages/native place away from the son. The parents of the deceased/son are also entitled for filial consortium for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “The arguments of the Insurance Company that the claim cannot be filed by the parents of the deceased as they were staying separate from the deceased in a native village as such were not dependent on the deceased cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Virendra @ Birendra Sahani & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:29950)