Husband Need Not Prove He Was Residing Together With Wife To Claim Loss Of Dependency After Her Death In Accident: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that residing together cannot be added as an additional condition which is to be established by a claimant in order to be entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground of loss of dependency

Justice Ravi V Hosmani said this while modifying the order of the tribunal which had refused the claim made by the husband seeking compensation on the grounds of loss of dependency after his wife died in a road accident. The court said,

"Residing together cannot be added as additional condition to be established by claimant in order to be entitled for compensation. Burden to establish separation would be on Insurer". 

The motor accidents tribunal while allowing Ningappa's claim petition held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver, leading to death of claimant's wife and therefore, claimant was entitled for compensation from Insurer.

However, the Tribunal took note of the contents of the complaint filed by the brother of the deceased wherein it was mentioned that the deceased wife was residing separately from her claimant-husband "to deny compensation towards loss of dependency".

The high court said:

“In instant case, Insurer is relying upon the contents of the complaint given by the brother of the deceased, who is examined as PW.3. In his deposition, he has stated that he does not know the contents of the complaint due to illiteracy. Merely on ground that he has signed a complaint, there cannot be presumption about him being literate. When Insurer did not confront him with signature and elicited admission either contradicting his assertion or falsifying it the same has to be accepted as sufficient explanation. In any case, the husband would be Class-I heir and dependent on the wife. There is absolutely no material to establish or indicate that the claimant had contracted a second marriage. Nothing has been elicited in this regard during cross examination of claimants. Under such circumstances, denial of compensation towards loss of dependency by the Tribunal would be contrary to law and compensation has to be computed under said head.”

The husband challenged the order contending that the complainant was examined and had clarified about his submission in complaint that the deceased was residing separately but in the same village.

Husband argued that Section 166 of MV Act provides that a claim petition can be filed by deceased's legal representatives and husband being Class-I heir was entitled to maintain claim petition. Therefore, denial of compensation by the Tribunal was not justified, he argued. 

The insurance company opposed the appeal submitting that the tribunal has rightly denied compensation towards loss of dependency.

The bench on going through the complaint and evidence of witnesses noted that there is no dispute about relationship of husband and wife between claimant and deceased and that there was no severance of said relationship. However Tribunal had held that claimant would be entitled for compensation under conventional heads only and not under loss of dependency. 

The high court thereafter said:

“Courts have time and again held that there cannot be restrictive interpretation of the word 'dependents'. When award of compensation towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is not challenged by Insurer and compensation towards spousal consortium is also accepted, it would not lie in the mouth of Insurer to contend that claimant would not be entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency”. 

Accordingly it modified the compensation amount granted and said that the husband is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.14,96,250, with interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization.

The court directed that the insurer is liable to pay the amount and directed it to deposit the same with interest before Tribunal within six weeks.

Appearance: Advocate Basavaraj R Math for Appellant.

Advocate Preeti Patil Melkundi for R2.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 252

Case Title: Ningappa AND PRABHATBHAI & ANR

Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202819 OF 2023

Click Here To Read Order