Insurance compensation for damage caused by the death of the victim as a result of a traffic accident shall be collected from the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine separately for the benefit of each minor child of the victim who was dependent on him on the day of the insured event. The receipt of a pension by a minor victim in connection with the assignment of a disability group to him and the stay of another minor victim in support at the expense of the state does not affect the fact of receiving the appropriate part of insurance compensation for damage caused by the death of the breadwinner as a result of a traffic accident.
This position is set out in case No. 455/1255/20 of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court dated December 9, 2021.
The case file states that the mother died as a result of a road accident. Two children were fully supported by her.
The first-instance court deprived the culprit of the accident of his liberty for 3 years under Part 3 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. And within the scope of the civil lawsuit, he collected moral damages separately from the convict and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications for the benefit of each child.
The appellate court left the verdict unchanged, and the complaint of the representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications was dismissed.
Therefore, the lawyer of the MSTBU in the cassation appeal demanded the annulment of the specified court decisions in terms of the satisfaction of the civil claim and the appointment of a new trial in the court of first instance.
This is justified by the fact that there is no evidence in the proceedings that the children of the deceased were fully dependent on her or received help from her, which was their main source of livelihood.
The lawyer also notes that the victim's son has a disability, so he is guaranteed the right to material support at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine and social security.
The Supreme Court noted that the receipt of a pension by a minor in connection with the assignment of a disability group to him "does not affect the fact of receiving the appropriate part of the insurance compensation."
The Supreme Court also agreed that the lawyer's assertions are groundless regarding the missing documents, which would indicate the victim's full maintenance of the children.
It is noted that the children are minors, so they were fully supported by their mother.
The court indicated that subparagraph "e" of clause 35.2 of Art. 35 of the Law "On Mandatory Civil Liability Insurance of Land Vehicle Owners" does not establish a clear list of documents to confirm the fact that a person is dependent on the victim.
"Therefore, such a document can be a certificate of residence (registration) from a housing and operating organization or a certificate from a local self-government body about being dependent or living together with the applicant," the case file states.
Therefore, the cassation appeal was dismissed.