Raju Singh vs Sharanappa and others. Miscellaneous First Appeal 103546/2019 decided on 11 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/349058/1/MFA103546-19-11-11-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 8 &9. There can be no two opinions that even an adult younger brother or grown up son is entitled to claim compensation under the head of loss of dependency subject to condition that they demonstrate that they were indeed dependant on the income of the deceased. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant has made out a case for grant of compensation under the head of loss of dependency? In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal does not call for any interference.
13. In the ruling of National Insurance Company Limited, the Apex Court entered upon the facts of the case and after appreciating the same, held in paragraph 15 as under: “15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only.
14. As noted by the Tribunal and as concluded by us, we do not find any material which demonstrates such a fact in the present case. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the adult was dependant on the income of the deceased or that the deceased was caring for the welfare and well being of the claimant, the claimant would not be entitled to claim compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
Appeal rejected
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 