The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that even if children claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act are major and earning on death of deceased parent, they are entitled to compensation for “loss of dependency.”
A single bench of Justice MA Chowdhary determined that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) erred in calculating and awarding compensation to claimants in two different claim petitions settled by a single ruling.
“It is held that claimants, even being major and earning, at the time of death of their deceased mothers are entitled to the loss of dependency, besides other heads under the conventional heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of parental consortium,” the bench noted.
With these findings, the High Court increased the compensation amount from Rs 1,85,000 to Rs 5,45,876 and reduced the compensation amount from Rs 3,10,000 to Rs 18,02,000.
The claim resulted from a vehicle collision caused by claimed hasty and negligent driving, in which two passengers, Zeba Begum and Shahmal Begum, were gravely hurt and died.
Both deceased’s legal heirs filed claims demanding compensation for their deaths.
The plaintiffs claimed that the tribunal did not rule in line with the law and awarded a paltry sum of Rs 50,000 as compensation, which was not just or fair.
It was asserted that the refusal of loss of dependency violated Supreme Court precedent.
After hearing the parties, the bench concluded that the tribunal’s conclusion that petitioners in both claim petitions were not entitled to compensation since they were major and earning sons was wrong.
“It is settled law that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation and it must necessarily follow that even major and earning sons of deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be bounded duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on deceased or not, to limit the claim towards the conventional head only,” the bench stated.
