Deep Shikha & Anr. vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Held: The deceased was married but her husband had left her soon after the birth of appellant no.1 (her daughter), after which appellant no.2 (her mother) was living with the deceased daughter – Appellant no.1 is married – A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased – Thus, it is clear from the record that appellant no.1 has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased – Therefore, the High Court correctly relied on Manjuri Bera while holding that appellant no.1, as the legal representative of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged in s.140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – However, the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s award as it relates to appellant no.2, the mother of the deceased – The obligation of a child to maintain their parent in old age is as much of a duty as the obligation of a parent to maintain their child during minority – The deceased, being the only provider, would be assumed to be fulfilling this obligation, further reinforcing appellant no.2’s status as a dependent – The Tribunal did not consider all the factors relating to appellant no.2 – Thus, taking into consideration all relevant factors such as the total income of the deceased, loss of estate, loss of filial consortium etc, appellant no.2 is entitled to compensation of Rs.19,22,356/- – Therefore, the impugned order insofar as it pertains to the compensation awarded to appellant no.1, is upheld – However, the impugned order with respect to the dismissal of the claim of appellant no. 2, warrants interference – Accordingly, a sum of Rs.19,22,356/- is awarded to appellant no.2 as compensation. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20]