BENGALURU: Merely because aged parents were living separately, it cannot be said that they were not depending on the deceased. The Karnataka High Court made this observation while rejecting the appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited in relation to an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kolar. On December 24, 2009, when GM Narayanaswamy and his friends were proceeding to Shabarimala in a Toyota Qualis, at about 2.45 am, along Gudalur main road in Tamil Nadu, the vehicle hit a roadside tree. Narayanaswamy succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The family members then moved the tribunal, seeking compensation, citing that deceased Narayanaswamy was working as a Physical Education Teacher in a government higher primary school and earning Rs 18,000 per month. On November 25, 2014, the tribunal awarded Rs 18,93,308 compensation with interest at 6% per annum to the family members. Both the insurer and the family members of Narayanaswamy appealed against the said verdict. The insurer argued that the driver of the Toyota Qualis was not at fault and he only diverted the vehicle to avoid a collision. The insurance company further argued that the parents of the deceased were living separately and hence were not dependent upon him, and that the son of the deceased was granted compassionate appointment and hence no compensation can be awarded under “loss of future income.” However, after perusing the materials on record, a division bench comprising Justices KS Mudagal and KV Aravind pointed out that despite denial by the insurer, based on the evidence, Gudalur North police registered an FIR against the driver of the Toyota Qualis and filed a charge sheet against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.The bench further noted that when the children are in service, many times parents stay back in the villages though they were being looked after by their earning children, and it is the pious responsibility of the children also.As regards the grant of compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased, the bench in October 2010 pointed out that in the Sebastiani Lakra and Ors Vs National Insurance Company Ltd case, the Supreme Court clearly held that deduction cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation on account of insurance, pensionary benefits, gratuity, or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. “On the date of the accident, the son was a dependent,” the bench further added while rejecting the appeal filed by the insurer. At the same time, the bench partly allowed the appeal filed by the family members of Narayanaswamy and awarded a slightly enhanced compensation of Rs 23,05,000 with a 50% share to the wife, a 30% share to the children, and a 20% share to the parents of the deceased.