In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that the father of the deceased person can be treated as dependent even though he lives separately and upheld the deduction towards personal expense.
United India Insurance Co Ltd, the appellant challenged the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-02, Delhi (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Petition titled Smt. Sonia & Ors. v. Sh. Satish Kumar & Ors.
The Claim Petition was registered on the Detailed Accident Report (‘DAR’) filed by the police corresponding to the investigation carried out in FIR No. 1484/15 under Sections 279/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS Narela.
As per the DAR, on 21.11.2015, the deceased-Arun Kumar was going on his motorcycle and at about 1:15 pm, when he reached Singhu Border Road in front of the Deepak Apartments, Narela, Delhi, one Maruti Van bearing registration no. HR-55-L-6792 (‘Offending Vehicle’), which was being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit his motorcycle.
As a result of the accident, the deceased fell from his motorcycle and he and his motorcycle came under the Offending Vehicle. The deceased was rushed to the SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined and was declared as brought dead.
The Tribunal, by way of the Impugned Award, has held that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the road accident due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal awarded Rs.69,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of the filing of the petition, that is 28.01.2016, till the date of its realization, in favour of the Legal Representatives of the deceased.
The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that as the parents of the deceased were not living with the deceased, they cannot be treated as dependent on him, and cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has also rightly rejected the submission by observing that there was evidence that the petitioners were solely and fully dependent upon the income of the deceased.
The insurance company had suggested that the father of the deceased was not financially dependent upon the deceased. The age of the father of the deceased was somewhere around 64 years and was independently working for gain at the time of the accident. The Tribunal viewed that the father of the deceased shall also be considered as dependent upon the deceased to compute the loss of dependency.
It was evident that for purposes of considering dependency, the Claimants were not to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, but on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. It can safely be presumed that given the age of the father, the father would have been largely financially dependent on the deceased. He, therefore, has been rightly considered for purposes of a ‘just’ deduction to be made from the income of the deceased towards his expenses.
In Indrawati v. Ranbir Singh, the Court held that “Even if the parents are not dependent on their children at the time of the accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon their children at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years. It would therefore be unfair as well as inequitable to deny compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent at his/her later age.”
The single bench of Justice Navin Chawla rejected the challenge of the Insurance Company to the deduction from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
