[Motor Vehicles Act] Financial dependency not sole criterion for legal representatives to claim compensation: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that financial dependency is not the sole criterion for legal representatives of the deceased to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

. Single judge Justice CS Dias , therefore, ordered that the married daughter and parents of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court opined that the Motor Vehicles Act which is a social welfare legislation and courts must therefore, adopt a beneficial rule of construction favourable to those in whose interest the enactment has been passed.

" Keeping in mind that the enactment is a beneficial and social welfare legislation, impels me to hold that dependency is only a criteria for a legal representative to claim compensation for loss of dependency under Section 166 of the Act, 1988, and is not the ‘be all end all’ criteria to claim compensation under the other pecuniary, non-pecuniary and conventional heads of compensation, " the judgment stated.

. Further, it opined that even if dependency was a relevant criterion, it would go beyond the scope of just financial dependency.

" Even if dependency is a 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, and so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of money. "

. The Court also took strong objection to the contention that a daughter, once married would no longer be dependent on her mother.

" It would be preposterous to accept the contention that a 25-year-old daughter would be no longer dependent on her 49-year-old mother because she was given in marriage. The bond between a mother and a daughter is eternal. I reminisce the quotation of Cardinal Mermillod ‒ “No matter how old she may be, sometimes a girl just needs her mom, ” it said.

. The Court issued the order on an appeal preferred by the United India Assurance Company challenging an order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) which ordered it to pay the claim made by the daughters and parents of a widow, one Sreedevi, who lost her life after she was mowed down by a vehicle.

The MACT issued the order allowing the claim under Section 166 of the Act.

. The appellant company challenged the order on the ground that the respondent daughters and grandparents are not legal representatives or dependents of Sreedevi.

. Advocate Deepa George , appearing for the appellants, argued that since one of the daughters is married, it cannot be said she was dependent on her mother.

She relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Anr v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors and Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Sujatha P & Ors v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Thressiamma v. State Expresss Transport Corporation (TN) Ltd . and Joseph v. Giji Varghese to fortify her contention that in a claim under Section 166 of the Act, it is imperative for the claimants to plead and prove that they were the dependents of the deceased.

. Advocate Manasy T , appearing for the respondents, submitted that after Sreedevi lost her husband, her septuagenarian parents started living with her and her two daughters.

She claimed that Sreedevi had been the sole breadwinner of the family and had been maintaining all the respondents.

Moreover, she argued that for the sole reason that one of the daughters was recently married, her entitlement to compensation for loss of dependency cannot be denied.

. Advocate Latha Susan Cherian was appointed as the Amicus Curiae in the case.

. On a consideration of the rival contentions, the following questions were considered by the Court.

(i) Is dependency a relevant criterion in a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

(ii) Should a dependent be a legal representative of the deceased to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Act?

(iii) Are parents and married daughters entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Act as dependents of the deceased?

. To answer these questions, the Court traced the legislative history relating to claims of compensation for actionable wrongs.

It noted that even though the Law Commission of India had recommended in its 85th and 149th reports that it would be appropriate to define the expression 'legal representative', the parliament declined to take any action on the recommendation though the Act was amended extensively on several occasions.

Similarly, the expression 'dependent' is also not defined in the Act unlike in the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

" All the above mentioned aspects throws light to the fact that the parliament has consciously refrained from using the expression ‘dependent’, despite the recommendations of the Law Commission, instead has permitted the legal representative(s) to move and claim compensation, and the Tribunal to specify the person or persons to whom compensation is to be paid, " the judgment stated.

. However, the Court noted that the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Rules) defines the expression ‘legal representative as follows:

“ 'Legal representative' means a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased. ”

As such, the Court found that there is no dispute that the respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased as per the Kerala Rules, 1989.

. The Court opined that the Act was enacted as a beneficial and social welfare legislation and held that financial dependency is not the sole criteria to claim compensation in an application filed under Section 163A of the Act.

However, in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the dependent has to be a legal representative of the deceased falling within Rule 2 (k) of the 1989 Rules; otherwise the expression ‘legal representative’ will be rendered otiose.

. Regarding the parents of the deceased, the Court stated that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, casts a statutory duty to maintain a senior citizen, who is unable to maintain himself.

Therefore, even if the deceased had neglected to maintain her parents, they were legally entitled to an order of maintenance under the above statute, the Court ordered.

. Therefore the Court dismissed the appeal as it concurred with the findings of the MACT that the married daughter as well as the parents of the deceased were dependents and therefore, entitled to to compensation for loss of dependency.

. [Read Judgment]

[Motor Vehicles Act] Financial dependency not sole criterion for legal representatives to claim compensation: Kerala High Court

Giti Pratap

Related Stories