Advertisement
Renuka’s husband, three daughters and a son had sought compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs 5,91,600 with six per cent annual interest to the family members.
The insurance company had challenged this in the HC contending that married daughters could not claim compensation, and also that they were not dependents. Therefore, awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ was wrong. It was claimed by the insurer that compensation was to be awarded only under ‘loss of estate.’ The HC, however, said that dependency does not only mean financial dependency. Even if the dependency is a relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss dependency, “it does not mean financial dependency is the ‘ark of the covenant’. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, and psychological dependency, which can never be equated in terms of the money, it said.
Other contentions of the insurance company including doubts about the age of the deceased, and her income were also rejected by the court. A warranty card for a sewing machine purchased by the deceased came in handy for the Tribunal to calculate her income at Rs 4,500 per month. The HC rejected the contention of the insurer that exorbitant compensation had been awarded by the Tribunal, and dismissed its appeal.