In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on April 29 held that a deceased woman’s husband cannot be excluded from the list of dependents for the purpose of determining insurance compensation solely on the ground that he is an able-bodied man.

A Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran observed that in the absence of any proof regarding the husband's employment, his financial dependency on the deceased cannot be ruled out and must be presumed to be at least partial.

“We are of the opinion that since there was no employment specified of the husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on the income of the deceased,” the Court stated.

The judgment arose from a motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, following the death of a woman pillion rider on February 22, 2015.

Her husband and two children had filed for compensation. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) treated only the children as dependents, excluding the husband on the basis that he was a 40-year-old able-bodied man. A compensation of ₹18,81,966 was awarded, which included ₹13.44 lakh for loss of dependency.

The insurance company challenged the award before the High Court, raising objections primarily on grounds of negligence and excessive compensation. While the High Court upheld the findings on negligence, it did not disturb the MACT's conclusion regarding the husband’s status as a non-dependent.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the exclusion of the husband, emphasizing that mere physical ability does not preclude dependency in the absence of employment details. The Court thus directed that the compensation be recalculated by treating the husband as a dependent along with the children.

Case Title: Sri Malakappa & Ors. v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.