{"id":255415,"date":"2021-10-11T11:00:51","date_gmt":"2021-10-11T05:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=255415"},"modified":"2021-10-15T10:46:03","modified_gmt":"2021-10-15T05:16:03","slug":"no-matter-how-old-she-may-be-sometimes-a-girl-just-needs-her-mom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/11\/no-matter-how-old-she-may-be-sometimes-a-girl-just-needs-her-mom\/","title":{"rendered":"Ker HC | \u201cNo matter how old she may be, sometimes a girl just needs her mom.\u201d HC holds a married daughter and maternal parents are entitled to claim compensation under MV Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kerala High Court: <\/strong>C.S. Dias, J., held that a married daughter and parents of the deceased woman are legal representative under the MV Act and hence, are entitled to claim compensation as a dependant of the deceased. The Bench remarked,<\/p>\n

\u201cEven if dependency is a relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the \u2018ark of the covenant\u2019. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of money.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

One Sreedevi was mowed down to death by a goods vehicle when she was on her way to work, leaving her two daughters and their maternal grandparents in destitute. The dependents of the deceased, i.e., her two daughters and septuagenarian parents had approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation from the insured and the insurer of the vehicle. The deceased was a 49 years old widow, who was an anganwadi worker earning a monthly honorarium of Rs.18,000 and was the only breadwinner of her family.<\/p>\n

The appellant contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and the respondents were not her legal representatives and dependants. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition, by holding that the respondents were the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased, and permitted the respondents to realise an amount of Rs.17,32,680 with interest and costs from the appellant.<\/p>\n

Contention<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The appellant contended that the Tribunal had erroneously held that the married daughter and parents of the deceased were dependent on her and it was only the unmarried daughter of who was a dependent in true sense.<\/p>\n

Disputing the arguments of the appellant, the respondents contended that after the deceased lost her husband, her septuagenarian parents started living with her and her two daughters. The deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and had been maintaining all the respondents, which proved that the respondents were dependent on her. \u00a0The respondents argued that for the sole reason that the respondent 1 was recently married, her entitlement to compensation for loss of dependency could not be denied.<\/p>\n

Findings of the Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Supreme Court in Gujarat SSRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai<\/em>, (1987) 3 SCC 234<\/a>, had held that, \u201cwe should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers’ children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n