A driving-licence breach does not bar pay-and-recover relief for third-party claimants.

The claimants, three children of the deceased, sought compensation for their mother’s death in a motorcycle accident on 15 December 2021.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,85,972 with interest at 9% per annum and directed the insurer to pay and recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

The insurer appealed, disputing the claimants’ dependency, its liability in light of the alleged absence of a valid driving licence, the pay-and-recover direction, and the interest rate.

Whether the adult children could maintain the compensation claim and which claimants were dependants for calculating loss of dependency.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of income, deduction for personal expenses, and compensation under the relevant heads required interference.

Whether the insurer could be directed to satisfy the award and recover the amount from the vehicle owner, despite the alleged driving-licence breach.

Whether interest at 9% per annum should be reduced.

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an award of the MACT may be challenged by appeal.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender establishes that legal representatives may maintain a claim for compensation whether or not they were financially dependent on the deceased; dependency remains relevant to the calculation of loss of dependency.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the deduction for personal and living expenses depends on the number of dependent family members; the Court applied a 50% deduction where only one person was dependent.

Pranay Sethi governed future prospects and conventional heads, while Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram supported filial consortium for children who are legal representatives, irrespective of age or dependency.

The Court also applied Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Om Prakash in holding that the insurer’s reading of that decision did not preclude a pay-and-recover direction in this case.

The Court held that all three children could maintain the claim, but distinguished maintainability from dependency.

It found that the two married sons had independent incomes and were not shown to depend on their mother, while the evidence that the unmarried, uneducated daughter depended on her remained unchallenged.

In reassessing the dependency calculation, the Court adopted a monthly notional income of Rs. 14,250, applied a 50% deduction for personal expenses, and used a multiplier of 7, producing Rs. 5,98,500 for loss of dependency.

It also discussed filial consortium and other conventional heads.

On liability, it rejected the insurer’s interpretation of Om Prakash and upheld the Tribunal’s pay-and-recover direction.

Finding no special reason for 9% interest, it reduced the rate to 6% per annum.

The judgment’s discussion recalculates compensation at Rs. 5,98,500 for dependency and identifies additional conventional-head amounts, but the operative order does not expressly substitute a revised total for the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 6,85,972.

This leaves an apparent inconsistency between the calculation discussion and the order that the award otherwise remain unaltered.