Why four out of five siblings lost their accident compensation claim? Kerala high court explains

NEW DELHI: The Kerala high court has ruled that major siblings of a deceased person who live separately with their own families cannot automatically be treated as dependants for the motor accident compensation, and that each claimant must independently prove their dependency on the deceased.Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen of the Kerala high court partly allowed an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Limited, reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, and restricted the loss of dependency award to only one of the five sibling claimants who had proved actual dependence, as per a report by LiveLawWhat was the dispute?The case arose from the death of Santhamma, a 57-year-old unmarried pensioner, who was struck by a scooter while crossing the road at a zebra crossing at Krishnapuram junction, on October 4, 2014.Her five adult siblings — Devaki, Pankajakshni, Chellamma, Sarada, and Unni approached the tribunal seeking compensation, claiming that they were dependent on the deceased. The tribunal awarded a total of Rs 6,89,400 with interest at 8 per cent per annum and penal interest at 12 per cent per annum.The insurer challenged the award on two main grounds, first, that the adult siblings living separately could not be treated as dependants, and second, that the tribunal had incorrectly fixed the notional monthly income at Rs 7,000 when the deceased's actual pension was only Rs 6,285, as evidenced by the Treasury Passbook.What did the court ruling say?The high court accepted the insurer's argument on income, noting that in the absence of any other document, the tribunal ought to have relied solely on the Treasury Passbook. Since the deceased was a pensioner and no other source of income was established, the court refixed the notional monthly income at Rs 6,285.On the question of dependency, the court found that only the second claimant, Pankajakshni, who was also unmarried and had been residing with the deceased, had sufficiently established her dependence. The other four siblings had been living separately with their own families and had not given any independent evidence before the tribunal.The bench observed that "unless proper evidence is adduced to establish that the other claimants were dependent on the deceased, they cannot be treated as dependents and, consequently, are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency."Since only one claimant qualified as a dependent, the court recalculated the loss of dependency accordingly.Applying 10 per cent future prospects to the refixed income as per the Supreme Court's ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the adjusted income came to Rs 6,913.5.The court further held that since the deceased was a spinster, one-half of her income — and not the one-third deducted by the tribunal — should be set aside towards personal and living expenses.With a multiplier of 9 applicable to a person aged 57, as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the loss of dependency was recalculated at Rs 3,73,329, down from the tribunal's award of Rs 5,54,400.The court also set aside the tribunal's direction to pay penal interest at 12 per cent per annum.The total compensation was reduced from Rs 6,89,400 to Rs 5,08,329, with interest at 8 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.