<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has held that the sisters and daughters of an accident victim cannot be denied the right to claim compensation merely on the grounds of their marital status. </p><p>Justice Umesh M Adiga said this while dismissing the appeal filed by the insurance company.</p>.Accident death: Karnataka HC orders enhanced compensation of Rs 22.80 lakh against tribunal’s Rs 77,000.<p>The accident had taken place on July 12, 2017, when Prem Prakash Menezes, 44, was knocked down by a speeding private bus in Udupi. He succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. His brother George Menezes and married sisters Janet and Anita moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking Rs 25 lakh as compensation. On January 10, 2020, the tribunal awarded Rs 10.6 lakh compensation along with 6 per cent interest.</p><p>While the claimants moved the High Court seeking higher compensation, the insurance company challenged the award. It was submitted on behalf of the insurance company that the accident victim was unmarried, and his parents are no more. It was argued that the married sisters cannot be considered as legal heirs or dependents of the deceased and even if considered they are entitled for 'loss of estate' and not for 'loss of dependency'.</p><p>The court rejected this contention citing the Apex Court judgement in the National Insurance Company Ltd vs Birendar and others case. “The contention of the insurer that the married sisters are residing in their matrimonial homes and therefore, cannot be treated as dependents of the deceased is untenable. In our social context, it is not uncommon for daughters and sisters, even after marriage, to maintain a close relationship with their parental family. The earning member of the family often contributes towards their welfare and social needs,” Justice Umesh Adiga said.</p><p>The court further said, “In this case it appears that parents of the claimants were no more. Deceased was said to be an earning member of the family, and it is also stated that he was taking care of the claimants and financially assisting them. There is no contra evidence to disbelieve it, except denial of said evidence.” </p><p>The court awarded an additional Rs 2.45 lakh compensation with 6 per cent annual interest on the enhanced amount.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has held that the sisters and daughters of an accident victim cannot be denied the right to claim compensation merely on the grounds of their marital status. </p><p>Justice Umesh M Adiga said this while dismissing the appeal filed by the insurance company.</p>.Accident death: Karnataka HC orders enhanced compensation of Rs 22.80 lakh against tribunal’s Rs 77,000.<p>The accident had taken place on July 12, 2017, when Prem Prakash Menezes, 44, was knocked down by a speeding private bus in Udupi. He succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. His brother George Menezes and married sisters Janet and Anita moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking Rs 25 lakh as compensation. On January 10, 2020, the tribunal awarded Rs 10.6 lakh compensation along with 6 per cent interest.</p><p>While the claimants moved the High Court seeking higher compensation, the insurance company challenged the award. It was submitted on behalf of the insurance company that the accident victim was unmarried, and his parents are no more. It was argued that the married sisters cannot be considered as legal heirs or dependents of the deceased and even if considered they are entitled for 'loss of estate' and not for 'loss of dependency'.</p><p>The court rejected this contention citing the Apex Court judgement in the National Insurance Company Ltd vs Birendar and others case. “The contention of the insurer that the married sisters are residing in their matrimonial homes and therefore, cannot be treated as dependents of the deceased is untenable. In our social context, it is not uncommon for daughters and sisters, even after marriage, to maintain a close relationship with their parental family. The earning member of the family often contributes towards their welfare and social needs,” Justice Umesh Adiga said.</p><p>The court further said, “In this case it appears that parents of the claimants were no more. Deceased was said to be an earning member of the family, and it is also stated that he was taking care of the claimants and financially assisting them. There is no contra evidence to disbelieve it, except denial of said evidence.” </p><p>The court awarded an additional Rs 2.45 lakh compensation with 6 per cent annual interest on the enhanced amount.</p>