Madras High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

A married daughter may be treated as a dependent for loss-of-dependency compensation.

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company limite vs Selvarani

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: July 30, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A married daughter may be treated as a dependent for loss-of-dependency compensation.. M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company limite vs Selvarani. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

On 4 April 2019, at approximately 9:30 a.m., the deceased was riding a tricycle carrying waste materials at Ellavur Bazaar, Gummidipoondi, when a car bearing Registration No. TN 03 R 3384 allegedly driven rashly and negligently struck the tricycle. The deceased sustained a grievous head injury and was declared dead while being taken to Government Hospital, Ponneri

Source reference: p.2, para.2

The deceased’s daughter, Selvarani, filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance Company denied rash and negligent driving by the car driver and alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, including an assertion that he was under the influence of alcohol

Source reference: p.3, para.3; p.4, para.7

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepted the evidence of the eyewitness, relied on the FIR and insurance policy, and awarded ₹17,82,400 with interest. It assessed the deceased’s notional monthly income at ₹12,000 and applied a multiplier of 11, while awarding ₹40,000 towards loss of consortium

Source reference: p.3, para.6

The Insurance Company appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Source reference: no citation
02

Issues

Whether the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the insured car, or whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, including negligence arising from alleged intoxication?

Source reference: p.5, para.10

Whether the married daughter of the deceased could be treated as a dependent and awarded compensation for loss of dependency?

Source reference: p.5, para.11

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification, particularly with respect to deduction for the deceased’s personal expenses?

Source reference: p.5, para.11; p.6, para.12
03

Law Applied

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For assessment of motor accident compensation, it applied the principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, concerning the selection of the appropriate multiplier and deduction towards personal expenses, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, concerning heads of compensation and conventional amounts

Source reference: p.3, para.6

The Court further relied on Saraswathi v. National Insurance Company, CMA No. 2057 of 2018, decided on 10 March 2022, for the principle that a married daughter may, in appropriate circumstances, be regarded as a dependent because familial support is not confined to strict economic dependence

Source reference: p.6, para.11

A party alleging contributory negligence or intoxication bears the evidentiary burden of establishing that allegation through reliable evidence.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court upheld the finding of negligence against the car driver because the eyewitness, PW2, categorically testified that the car was driven rashly and that the driver suddenly applied the brakes, causing the collision and the deceased’s fatal head injury

Source reference: p.5, para.10

The FIR also attributed the accident to the car driver, while the Insurance Company neither examined supporting witnesses nor produced medical records to prove that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, the plea of contributory negligence was rejected

Source reference: p.5, para.10

On dependency, the Court held that the claimant’s status as a married daughter did not automatically exclude her from being treated as a dependent. Following Saraswathi, it recognised that a married daughter may continue to receive familial and financial support from her father

Source reference: p.6, para.11

Nevertheless, since the deceased had only one married daughter as claimant, the Court deducted 50% of the assessed income towards the deceased’s personal expenses and awarded 50% of the loss-of-dependency amount. The awards towards consortium and funeral expenses were otherwise considered just and were not interfered with

Source reference: p.6, para.11
05

Holding

The appeal was partly allowed. The Court affirmed that the accident resulted solely from the rash and negligent driving of the insured car and rejected the Insurance Company’s plea of contributory negligence and intoxication

It held that the married daughter was entitled to compensation as a dependent, but directed a 50% deduction towards the deceased’s personal expenses

Source reference: p.6, para.11

The Tribunal’s award was accordingly modified, and the claimant was held entitled to ₹9,11,200 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation, with disbursement in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions. No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed

Source reference: p.7, para.13
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company limitevsSelvarani

Madras High Court · July 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment