United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Kuldeep and Ors

Delhi High Court · 14 Mar 2013 · 2013:DHC:1400

Suresh Kait

MAC. Appeal No.751/2012

2013:DHC:1400

civil appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation awarded to unmarried siblings of a deceased bachelor as dependents in absence of parents, emphasizing social realities and lack of contrary evidence.

Full Text

MAC. Appeal No.751/2012 HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGMENT

delivered on: 14th March, 2013

MAC.APP. 751/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate.

Versus

KULDEEP AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

MAC.APP. 751/2012

1. Vide the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 07.05.2012 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued only on the ground that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation contrary to the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Anr. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, by considering the brothers and sisters of the deceased as dependents. 2013:DHC:1400

3. Learned counsel has submitted that moreover in a case of Devi Dutt & Others v. Manish Sharma & Others MAC App. 753/2010 decided on 19.04.2012 whereby, while relying on National Insurance Company v. Meghji Naran Sortiya & Ors., II 2009 ACC 289 (SC), it was held that if the claimants fail to produce any evidence of dependency, then the claim cannot be granted in their favour being dependents.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants submitted that at the time of death the deceased was of 19 years of age and was working as food supplier in a Dhaba and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. He left two brothers namely Prateek and Kuldeep of 17 years and 26 years respectively and one sister namely Kunti Kumari of 15 years of age.

5. He further submitted that at the time of accident, all three were unmarried and dependent on the deceased. The sister of the deceased was minor and just 15 years of age.

6. Learned counsel also relied upon a case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Meghji Naran Sortiya (Supra) wherein even the married son and daughter-in-law were also considered as dependents of the deceased, whereas, in the present case the claimants are brothers and sisters and their parents are pre-deceased.

7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

8. In India, majority of population belong to the lower strata of the society, wherein one person is an earning member and rest all are dependents because of unemployment. If the father and mother die, the brother or son takes the responsibility of his brothers and sisters and he perform all the responsibilities which were of the father. In the present case, there are two brothers and one sister. All are unmarried and dependent, and the sister was just 15 years of age. In such a situation, when there are no parents on their head then one of the brothers has to take the responsibility. It is also not necessary that the elder brother has to take the responsibility; it depends on case to case. However, in the present case, all three brothers and sisters were dependent upon deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the claimants’ claim and granted compensation.

9. I note that there is no suggestion put by the insurance company whether they were working anywhere and earning, therefore, in such a situation, the Tribunal had no option, but to rely upon the version of the claimants. Moreover, in claim petition, they all were stated to be dependents. The Tribunal had no option but to rely upon the averments made in the claim petition unless and until contrary is proved by the opposite party.

10. Similar issue has been dealt by this Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jai Devi Verma & Ors. being MAC App. No.1016/2011 decided on 13th February, 2013, wherein this Court has held as under:-

“6. I note that the learned Tribunal has considered the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and observed that in the case of death of a bachelor, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In view of the above, ld. Tribunal has held that in

such a case 50% of the income will be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

7. Learned Tribunal has also been conscious of the fact as laid down in the above cited case that normally 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses in case of a bachelor since it is assumed that a bachelor tends to spend more on himself, even otherwise, there is also possibility of her getting married in near future, in which case the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.

8. Consciously, the learned Tribunal did not agree with the contention of the appellant for the reason that it has already come on record that father of the deceased had already predeceased him and he was the only son who was looking after his widow mother and unmarried sister.

9. Ld. Tribunal has further observed that in the peculiar circumstances of the case since there was no other earning member of the family, the deceased was the only person who was looking after the financial and emotional needs of the claimants.

6,092 characters total

10. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal has rightly noted in its impugned award that in the Indian set up, a brother or son takes upon himself responsibility of his family and looks after them, especially if, unfortunately, the father dies leaving behind his responsibilities. Sons and brothers take upon their shoulders not only the responsibility of taking care of financial needs of their mothers and sisters as per Indian traditions with few exceptions; they are also fatherly figure to their brothers and sisters in case they loss their father.”

11. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

12. The Registry is directed to release 25% Statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal in its favour.

13. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in terms of the order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by them. CM No. 12180/2012 (for stay) With the disposal of the petition itself, this application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of.

SURESH KAIT, J. MARCH 14, 2013 ‘raj’/RS

United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Kuldeep and Ors

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation