Karnataka High Court: In a miscellaneous first appeal filed by the claimant for modifying the impugned judgment and award of Rs 70,000 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge denying him compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) for death of his wife on the ground of them living separately, the Single-Judge Bench of Ravi V Hosmani, J., allowed the appeal in part and modified the award to Rs.14,96,250 by granting compensation for loss of dependency holding that residing together cannot be added as additional condition to be established by claimant in order to be entitled for compensation. The Court further observed that the burden to establish separation would be on Insurer.
Background
The claimant’s wife was employed for Highway repair work on NH-50. On 07-07-2021 while she was working on NH-50 a lorry driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her, causing an accident. Despite being admitted to the hospital, she died during treatment. Alleging loss of dependency, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act against the owner and insurer of the lorry. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle by its driver and therefore, the claimant was entitled to compensation from the insurer. The Tribunal Rs. 70,000 in total and taking note of the deceased residing separately from her husband denied compensation towards loss of dependency. Aggrieved by this claimant filed the present appeal
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the point for consideration was whether the claimant was entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for.
The Court observed that the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle leading to the death of the claimant’s wife, insurer being liable to pay compensation were not in dispute. The only ground on which the appeal was filed was the error committed by the Tribunal in denying compensation towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal had referred to the specific contention that the claimant was not dependent on the deceased and had contracted a second marriage and was residing separately.
The Court observed that there was no dispute about the relationship of husband and wife between the claimant and deceased, and that there was no severance of said relationship. The Court noted that courts have time and again held that there cannot be restrictive interpretation of word ‘dependents’. Further, when award of compensation towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is not challenged by Insurer and compensation towards spousal consortium is also accepted, it would not lie in mouth of Insurer to contend that claimant would not be entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency.
The Court noted that residing together cannot be added as additional condition to be established by claimant to be entitled for compensation. The burden to establish separation would be on the Insurer. The Insurer relied upon the contents of the complaint made by the brother of the deceased stating that the claimant and the deceased were living separately and signed it. The brother claimed to be illiterate and not being aware of the contents of the complaint. Mere signing of complaint by the brother did not show literacy.
The Court observed that the husband would be a Class-I heir and dependent on wife. It found absolutely no material to establish or indicate that claimant had contracted second marriage. Nothing in this regard was elicited during the cross-examination of the claimant. Under such circumstances, the denial of compensation towards loss of dependency by the Tribunal would be contrary to law and compensation must be computed under said head.
The Court calculated the compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’ as Rs.14,96,250. The claimant was held entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 14,96,250 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.
[Ningappa v. Prabhatbhai, Miscl. First Appeal No. 202819 of 2023, decided on 11-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Basavaraj R. Math, Advocate
For the Respondent: Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate