2023 (12) TMI 1449 - SCH - Indian Laws

Entitlement to compensation under the Motor Accident Claims framework - Insurance Company contended that these brothers being older married and with their own families were not dependents entitled to compensation under the Motor Accident Claims framework - HELD THAT - The Tribunal and the High Court should not have considered the three older married siblings to be dependent on the deceased victim. The compensation awarded to the married siblings is therefore found to be unmerited. The appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as upheld by the High Court under the impugned judgment. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The Supreme Court of India, through Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, granted leave and heard an appeal by an Insurance Company challenging the dependency status of three claimant brothers (Anand Pal, Satish Kumar, Sanjay Kumar) of the deceased victim. The Insurance Company contended that these brothers, being older, married, and with their own families, were not "dependents" entitled to compensation under the Motor Accident Claims framework.Relying on the precedent in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. ((2009) 6 SCC 121), the Court reiterated that "brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father," absent evidence to the contrary. The Court noted that although the deceased occasionally assisted his siblings, the existence of separate residences and family registers indicated independent households, making dependency unlikely.Accordingly, the Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and High Court erred in awarding compensation to the three married siblings as dependents. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned awards were set aside. The Court emphasized the necessity of clear evidence of dependency to claim compensation and closed pending applications.