<p>Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court has ruled that receipt of family pension will not disentitle the wife to make claims under the head ‘loss of dependency’ in an accident case. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar said this while rejecting the appeal filed by an insurance company.</p><p>The insurance company challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag, in favour of Sharada, wife of Basavanneppa Gorawar, and their four sons. On January 15, 2012, Basavanneppa was riding pillion with Shantaveer and they were heading towards Gaddi Halla Advisomapur village, Gadag district to attend a function. The police report said that rider Shantaveer was riding in a rash and negligent manner and hit a buffalo. Basavanneppa Gorawar fell off the motorcycle and succumbed to serious head injuries.</p>.MUDA 'scam' probe: Karnataka High Court rejects plea to transfer case against CM Siddaramaiah to CBI.<p>Basavanneppa’s wife received Rs 24,871 as family pension. Meanwhile, she, along with her four children, moved the tribunal seeking compensation. They claimed that the deceased was earning Rs 60,000 per month as he was a book writer apart from being an agriculturist. The tribunal awarded Rs 14,82,776 as compensation, of which Rs 13,92,776 was awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’ with 60 per cent of the amount payable to the wife and 10 per cent each to the four sons of the deceased.</p><p>In its appeal, the insurance company argued that only the wife can be considered for the compensation since the children are all grown up. It was further contended that the wife is not entitled to compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ since she is receiving Rs 24,871 as family pension.</p><p>Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar cited in the Sebastian Lakra case and said the apex court has clarified that the wife receiving family pension is entitled to receive compensation under ‘loss of dependency’. “The family pension is the result of the service rendered by the employee to the employer. The employee spends his whole life serving the employer; therefore, after superannuation of age, the employee will get the pension as a matter of right for sustaining in life after retirement.</p><p>Hence, just because the wife is receiving family pension due to the death of the deceased/husband, does not amount to disentitling to make claim under the head 'loss of dependency'. "Grant of family pension is not charity, it is a basic necessity of life enabling a person after retirement to lead a decent life,” the court said.</p><p>The court also rejected the contention put forth by the insurer against the share in the compensation to the grown up children. “Just because the children are major and cannot be categorized as dependents does not mean that the deceased was tending to make expenditure on himself as in case of bachelor or unmarried individuals,” the court said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court has ruled that receipt of family pension will not disentitle the wife to make claims under the head ‘loss of dependency’ in an accident case. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar said this while rejecting the appeal filed by an insurance company.</p><p>The insurance company challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag, in favour of Sharada, wife of Basavanneppa Gorawar, and their four sons. On January 15, 2012, Basavanneppa was riding pillion with Shantaveer and they were heading towards Gaddi Halla Advisomapur village, Gadag district to attend a function. The police report said that rider Shantaveer was riding in a rash and negligent manner and hit a buffalo. Basavanneppa Gorawar fell off the motorcycle and succumbed to serious head injuries.</p>.MUDA 'scam' probe: Karnataka High Court rejects plea to transfer case against CM Siddaramaiah to CBI.<p>Basavanneppa’s wife received Rs 24,871 as family pension. Meanwhile, she, along with her four children, moved the tribunal seeking compensation. They claimed that the deceased was earning Rs 60,000 per month as he was a book writer apart from being an agriculturist. The tribunal awarded Rs 14,82,776 as compensation, of which Rs 13,92,776 was awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’ with 60 per cent of the amount payable to the wife and 10 per cent each to the four sons of the deceased.</p><p>In its appeal, the insurance company argued that only the wife can be considered for the compensation since the children are all grown up. It was further contended that the wife is not entitled to compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ since she is receiving Rs 24,871 as family pension.</p><p>Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar cited in the Sebastian Lakra case and said the apex court has clarified that the wife receiving family pension is entitled to receive compensation under ‘loss of dependency’. “The family pension is the result of the service rendered by the employee to the employer. The employee spends his whole life serving the employer; therefore, after superannuation of age, the employee will get the pension as a matter of right for sustaining in life after retirement.</p><p>Hence, just because the wife is receiving family pension due to the death of the deceased/husband, does not amount to disentitling to make claim under the head 'loss of dependency'. "Grant of family pension is not charity, it is a basic necessity of life enabling a person after retirement to lead a decent life,” the court said.</p><p>The court also rejected the contention put forth by the insurer against the share in the compensation to the grown up children. “Just because the children are major and cannot be categorized as dependents does not mean that the deceased was tending to make expenditure on himself as in case of bachelor or unmarried individuals,” the court said.</p>