The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal of an insurance company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in favor of the dependents of a deceased motor accident victim. The insurance company contended that the monthly income of the deceased was erroneously fixed at Rs. 6,000 and argued that the parents of the deceased, who resided separately, were not dependent on him and therefore not entitled to compensation. The court rejected both contentions, holding that the deceased's income was reasonably assessed and that the parents were entitled to compensation, including for filial consortium, despite living apart from the deceased.

1. Background of the Case

On July 25, 2010, the deceased was struck by a negligent autorickshaw driver while crossing a road. He succumbed to his injuries on July 31, 2010. The deceased's family, including his wife, children, and parents, filed a claim for compensation. The MACT found the autorickshaw driver negligent and awarded Rs. 14,14,000 as compensation, considering the deceased's notional income as Rs. 6,000 per month.

2. Grounds of Appeal

The insurance company challenged the MACT's award on two grounds: (i) the deceased's income was incorrectly assessed at Rs. 6,000 per month, and (ii) the deceased's parents, who were residing separately, were not dependent on him and thus not entitled to compensation.

3. Court's Findings on Income Assessment

The court dismissed the insurance company's contention regarding the deceased's income, affirming that a skilled laborer in 2010 could reasonably be expected to earn Rs. 6,000 per month.

4. Legal Interpretation of Dependency

The court analyzed the concept of "legal representative" and "dependency" under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Citing various Supreme Court judgments, the court emphasized that the term "legal representative" should be interpreted broadly, including not only dependents but also any legal heir of the deceased.

5. Right to Compensation for Parents

The court rejected the argument that the parents were not entitled to compensation because they lived separately. It highlighted that, under Indian social norms, parents are typically dependent on their children, especially in their old age, and are entitled to compensation for loss of love, care, and companionship (filial consortium).

6. Conclusion

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the MACT's award, affirming the parents' entitlement to compensation despite their separate residence from the deceased.