Married daughters may be treated as dependants where evidence of financial dependence is unrebutted.

The claimants sought compensation for the death of Nawshath Ali in a motor accident involving a vehicle insured by the appellant.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.44,47,584, assessing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.27,000 and treating the claimants, including his married daughters, as dependants.

The insurer appealed, contending that the income assessment was unsupported and that only two dependants should have been counted, warranting a one-third rather than one-fourth deduction for personal expenses.

The claimants relied on a salary certificate recording employment as a cook in Malaysia and the widow’s evidence that the married daughters were dependants.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.27,000 was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

2. Whether the deceased’s married daughters could be treated as dependants when calculating compensation, and whether the Tribunal should therefore have deducted one-third rather than one-fourth for personal expenses.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In assessing compensation, the Court considered the evidence of income and dependency, including the salary certificate and oral testimony, and applied the principle that compensation under the Act is to be determined in a manner consistent with its beneficial purpose.

The Court considered Deep Shikha and another v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 561, which, on its particular facts, stated that marriage gives rise to a presumption that a daughter is financially supported by her husband or his family unless the contrary is proved.

The Court treated that principle as fact-specific and not controlling on the evidence in this case.

The Tribunal’s income assessment was supported by the salary certificate, which recorded earnings of Rs.50,000 per month; the Tribunal had assessed income more conservatively at Rs.27,000, and the insurer produced no contrary evidence.

On dependency, the widow testified that the married daughters depended on the deceased, while the insurer produced no evidence about their circumstances or their husbands’ incomes to rebut that testimony.

The Court distinguished Deep Shikha because the present record included the widow’s evidence and the insurer had not displaced it; it also considered the deceased’s occupation as a cook and the beneficial character of the legislation.

It found no basis to disturb the one-fourth deduction or the other heads of compensation.

It directed the insurer to deposit the balance award, with interest and costs, within four weeks; upon application, the claimants could withdraw the amount in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.