In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has declared that parents of individuals who die in road accidents are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, even if they live separately or in their native places. The court emphasized that parents are considered "dependents" and, therefore, eligible for compensation.
Justice Pednekar on Filial Consortium
Justice Arun Pednekar highlighted that parents of deceased victims are entitled to filial consortium, which includes compensation for the loss of love, affection, care, and companionship of their child. He pointed out the cultural norm in India where parents depend on their children for support in old age, regardless of whether they live together or apart.
Case Background: Virendra Sahani's Accident
The ruling came in response to an appeal by an insurance company against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's (MACT) decision to award compensation to the family of Virendra Sahani, who died in a road accident in 2010. On July 25, 2010, Sahani, a resident of Mulund, was struck by an auto-rickshaw while crossing a road at 10:30 pm. He succumbed to his injuries six days later. The MACT had approved the compensation claim filed by Sahani’s wife, two minor children, and his parents, who resided in a village. The tribunal found the auto-rickshaw driver negligent and estimated Sahani’s monthly income at Rs 6,000, considering his status as a skilled laborer. Consequently, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. was ordered to pay Rs 14.14 lakh to Sahani’s family.
Insurance Company's Appeal Dismissed
The insurance company contested the verdict, arguing that Sahani’s income had been overestimated and that his parents, living separately, were not his dependents and thus not eligible for compensation. However, the High Court, citing a Supreme Court judgment, clarified that the right to claim compensation does not depend solely on full dependency. Instead, it is the tribunal's responsibility to determine the extent of dependency. Justice Pednekar rejected the insurance company’s appeal, affirming that the parents' claim could not be dismissed simply because they lived apart from their deceased son in a native village.