NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that a married and earning daughter, son, spouse or sibling cannot be excluded from motor accident compensation merely because they are married, employed or residing separately, saying “such an approach would not be consistent with the realities of Indian family structures”.
A bench of Justice Anish Dayal passed the order while hearing an appeal against a March 12, 2019, order by a tribunal, awarding only one-third of the computed loss of dependency.
The High Court said that tribunals must examine the nature of dependency rather than apply a rigid classification of dependents and non-dependents.
“The claim of dependency has to be seen through the prism of the nature of dependency and cannot be put into discrete slots, as has been done in some decisions. A person cannot be straightway shunted out as not being dependent merely because they are married and earning,” the judge said in an order passed on November 6.
The court was hearing a petition filed by one Savita, whose sister Meenu, 23, and father Chamanlal, 56, died in a road accident on August 31, 2015. Savita had married in 2002 and was living separately. Her mother had died earlier, and the deceased left no other legal heirs.
The insurer had opposed Savita’s plea for compensation, saying she was married and not dependent, and that at most 15 per cent of the income could be awarded as loss of estate.
The judge noted the submission and said that Indian households are large family units, with members holding moral or financial stakes in the family income.
“Such an approach (taken by the tribunal) would not be consistent with the realities of Indian family structures. The mere fact that a person was not financially dependent on the deceased on a day-to-day basis does not necessarily mean that the death resulted in no financial loss to that person or that the person ought to receive no compensation,” the judge said.
The judge added, “The insurance company, driver or owner, who is otherwise liable, cannot be completely absolved from payment merely because the family structure of the deceased does not fit within a conventional category of dependency.”
The judge enhanced the compensation awarded to Savita for her sister’s death from Rs 9,27,100 to Rs 14,38,054 and for her father’s death from Rs 13,15,600 to Rs 20,20,871.
