Married Daughter Living Separately Found Partly Dependent, Delhi HC Raises Crash Compensation For Father And Sister’s Deaths

Savita claimed compensation for the deaths of her unmarried sister, Meenu, and father, Chamanlal, who died in the same motor-vehicle accident on 31 August 2015.

Her mother had predeceased them.

The MACT treated Savita as a non-dependent legal representative and, applying Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar, assessed compensation for each death as loss of estate equal to one-third of the deceased’s income, with funeral expenses.

The insurer appealed, arguing that Savita was married and not dependent, and that any loss-of-estate award should be limited to 15%; Savita cross-appealed seeking enhancement, relying on evidence that Meenu earned income and contributed to her support.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act permits an application by any legal representative of a deceased victim; under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, “legal representative” is broad and is not confined to legal heirs or dependants.

Section 168 requires the Tribunal to specify the person or persons to whom compensation is payable.

Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. establishes that lack of dependency does not, by itself, bar a legal representative from claiming compensation.

The governing assessment principles are Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, as affirmed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi: determine income, add future prospects, deduct personal and living expenses by reference to the circumstances and number of dependants, and apply the appropriate multiplier.

The standardised deductions are guidelines rather than inflexible rules.

Compensation must be just and reasonable, guided by restitutio in integrum; the resulting award is to be apportioned with regard to each claimant’s practical degree of dependency.

The Court considered the Keith Rowe loss-of-estate method inconsistent with the standardised framework for assessing dependency compensation.

The Court held that Savita’s status as a legal representative entitled her to maintain both claims, while her actual or partial dependency was relevant to quantification and apportionment, not standing.

It rejected the MACT’s use of Keith Rowe to calculate a fixed one-third loss-of-estate award and instead applied the Sarla Verma method.

Although Savita was married and lived separately, the Court considered that she could still have received financial support from her father and sister, and treated her as partially dependent.

It applied a 50% deduction for personal and living expenses to each deceased, then applied the relevant future-prospects rate and multiplier.

It also awarded consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate for each death.

It enhanced compensation for Meenu’s death to Rs. 14,38,054, an increase of Rs. 5,10,954, and for Chamanlal’s death to Rs. 20,20,871.50, an increase of Rs. 7,05,271.50, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with directions for deposit and release of the amounts.