Manku Vanshkar and Ors v. National Insurance Company Ltd

1. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 29.03.2022 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by learned Presiding Officer, MACT, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Petition. 1.[1] The challenge in the present Appeal is for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in the sum of Rs. 15,04,040/- along with 6% interest per annum to the Appellants amounting to Rs.22,65,335/-.

2. The challenge in the present Appeal by the Appellants is on two grounds. Firstly, that the deduction that was taken by the learned Tribunal was taken as 1/3rd instead of 1/4th since the Appellant No.4 was the married daughter of the deceased. Secondly, that the interest that has been awarded at 6% is also not in accordance with the bank rate as prevalent in 2013.

3. Briefly the facts are that on 06.08.2013, one Mr. Munni Lal was walking along with his son [Appellant No.2] towards his residence after some purchases and he was hit by a motorcycle driven by Respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner which resulted in fatal injuries and the said Mr. Munni Lal passed away as a result of the accident. 3.[1] It is the case of the Appellants that the deceased was 45 year old man and in good health, and was self-employed earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by his widow and his three children being his son, unmarried daughter as well as his married daughter, who at the time of the accident was 27 years of age. 3.[2] Although, the offending vehicle was duly insured, since the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, the learned Tribunal granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company. The learned Trial Court gave a finding that all the Respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the Appellants.

4. As stated above, the only ground for challenge by the Appellants is on quantum. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the deceased was survived by the following legal heirs: S.NO.

MANKU VANSHKAR 42 YEARS WIDOW APPELLANTNO.2

HARI NARAYAN 21 YEARS SON APPELLANTNO.3 USHA 19 YEARS DAUGHTER APPELLANTNO.4 SUSHILA 27 YEARS MARRIED DAUGHTER 4.[1] The learned Tribunal held that the married daughter [Appellant No.4] cannot be held to be a dependent on the income of the deceased and only the Appellant Nos.1,[2] and 3 [who are the widow and the unmarried children] were considered as dependants and, based thereon, a personal deduction of 1/3rd was made in the Impugned Award.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal is that the married daughter would not be a dependent is not in consonance with the judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and of the Kerela and Karnataka High Court. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants on the judgments in Ram Charan & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.[1] and New India Assurance v. Manju Chandra[2], in this behalf. 5.[1] In addition, it is contended that the judgments of the Kerela High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalumol[3] as well as the Karnataka High Court, have also taken a view that just because a girl is married, she does not stop being dependent on her father.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the dependency as taken by the learned Tribunal was in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors[4].; and thus, is in accordance with law.

7. The learned Tribunal has held that where legal representatives have attained the age of majority and are not financially dependent, no deduction is required to be made for them. The learned Tribunal has thus found that the dependency would be only of the widow and the son and the unmarried daughter, and thus, 1/3rd deduction of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses should be considered and only for contribution towards maintenance of the wife and unmarried son. The relevant extract of the Impugned Order is as follows: “14.[6] In the light of aforesaid opinion expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of National Insurance Company vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors CIVIL (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Vinish Jain And Ors Etc (supra) it can be safely concluded that in cases where the legal representatives of a deceased/victim have attained the age of majority and are not totally financially dependent upon the deceased then the deceased is likely to spare more of his income for his personal and living expenses and to contribute less towards household expenses. In the present matter, deceased Munni Lal is survived by his wife and two major daughters as well as one major son, out of whom one daughter of the deceased, namely, Sushila was married at the time of the alleged case accident and in these circumstances the primary duty of the deceased was to provide maintenance to his wife, namely, Manku Bai and his unmarried son, namely, Hari Narayan @ Harman as well as to his unmarried daughter Usha Devi. Although, Hari Narayan and Usha Devi were also major and were aged about 21 and 19 years respectively, however, it is the case of the petitioners that said Hari Narayan and Usha Devi were dependent on the income of the deceased. Despite cross examining PW[1] Manku Bai, wife of the deceased and PW[2] Hari Narayan son of the deceased at length no suggestion has been given to them by learned counsels for the respondents that Hari Narayan Advocate Usha Devi were not dependent on the income of the deceased. Thus, in view of the fact that only three of the legal representative of the deceased, namely, Manku Bai, Hari Narayan and Usha Devi were financially dependent upon the deceased, therefore, this court is of the opinion that 1/3 of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and the remaining 2/3 should be considered to be his contribution towards maintenance of his wife and unmarried son Hemant.” [Emphasis Supplied]

8. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the loss of dependency was also considered in the judgement passed by the Coordinate Bench in Ram Charan case wherein relying on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd v. Gangappa & Ors[5] and on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Ors[6], to hold that the dependency could be of various types and the legal representatives of the deceased including married daughters and earning sons have a right to apply for compensation, and that it would be the duty of the Tribunals to examine whether such a legal representative would be dependent on the deceased. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the Ram Charan case below:

Court also held that bond between the mother and daughter is eternal and further observed that even if the dependency is relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the ‘ark of the covenant’. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of the money.

25. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgements referred to supra, this Court has taken note of recent judgement of the Apex Court in Birender, wherein it is held that even married sons are entitled for compensation not only on conventional heads but also on loss of dependency. Hence, the very contention of the appellant-insurance company cannot be accepted.” 8.[1] The Supreme Court in Birender case, while dealing with the issue as to whether the major sons of the deceased are to be paid compensation has held as follows:

14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.”