A brother’s capacity to earn does not negate proven dependency on the deceased’s income.

On 26 July 1999, Rangarao, who was travelling on a scooter, died after being hit by a bus insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rangarao was employed as a Superintendent at Gadge Maharaj Mahavidyalaya, Murtizapur, and his salary was proved at Rs. 13,027 per month, comprising basic pay, dearness allowance, house-rent allowance and scooter allowance.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal treated his income as Rs. 12,000 per month, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, and awarded compensation to his brother, Ashok Mahadeo Kalaskar, treating him as a dependent.

The Insurance Company challenged the award principally on the ground that the claimant, being the deceased’s brother and capable of earning his own livelihood, was not dependent upon the deceased.

Whether the deceased’s brother, as a legal representative, could maintain a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, despite not being a spouse, child or parent of the deceased?

Whether the claimant established dependency upon the deceased notwithstanding his admission that he could earn through his labour?

Whether the compensation required recalculation by applying the correct income, multiplier, future prospects and conventional heads of damages?

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act permits a legal representative of the deceased to apply for compensation; a legal representative need not necessarily be a legal heir or fall within the conventional categories of spouse, parent or child.

Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure gives “legal representative” an inclusive and broad meaning, covering a person who represents the estate of the deceased.

Section 168 requires the Tribunal to determine just compensation and specify the persons entitled to it and the person liable to pay it.

The Court relied on Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, holding that a person who suffers on account of the death may qualify as a legal representative; Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., distinguishing the right to apply from entitlement to compensation; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, recognising that major or married claimants may apply, although the quantum depends upon proof of dependency.

The principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi governed the multiplier, deduction for personal expenses and future prospects.

The Court also relied on Sunita v. Vinod Singh regarding assessment of age from reliable evidence, including the post-mortem report.

The Court distinguished between the locus to file a claim and entitlement to compensation.

As the deceased’s brother, the claimant could represent the deceased’s estate and therefore satisfied the requirement of being a legal representative under Section 166.

On dependency, the claimant stated in examination-in-chief that he depended on Rangarao’s income, while his statement that he could earn through his own labour merely established physical earning capacity.

The Court held that earning capacity and actual dependency are distinct considerations; the former does not by itself disprove the latter, particularly when the claimant’s evidence of dependency remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination.

For quantum, the Court accepted a monthly income of Rs. 12,827 after deducting Rs. 200 as professional tax from the proved salary of Rs. 13,027, rather than the Tribunal’s figure of Rs. 12,000.

It applied a multiplier of 13, treating the deceased’s age as 50 years, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, and added 30% towards future prospects.

It further awarded filial consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses in accordance with the applicable principles.

The Insurance Company’s challenge to his entitlement was therefore rejected.

The compensation was recalculated at Rs. 13,84,556, comprising loss of dependency, future prospects, filial consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Since Rs. 5,00,000 had already been awarded/claimed, the Appellant was directed to pay an additional Rs. 8,84,556 with interest at 9% per annum within eight weeks.

The appeal was dismissed, the civil application was disposed of, and withdrawal was made subject to adjustment of amounts already withdrawn, payment of additional court fee and production of appropriate material regarding the deceased’s income-tax liability.