A younger brother may qualify as a dependent for motor accident compensation.

On 8 December 2014, Rohit Bharatkumar Soni was travelling from Bhuj to Anjar on a motorcycle when a tempo allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1 collided with him. Rohit sustained fatal head and other injuries and died at the spot.

The appellant, his younger brother, filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anjar, seeking compensation from the tempo’s driver, owner and insurer.

The Tribunal, in MACP No. 1200 of 2015, awarded only ₹1,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The appellant challenged the award contending that the Tribunal had failed to consider the younger brother as a dependent and had awarded an inadequate amount of compensation.

Whether the deceased’s younger brother could be treated as a dependent and, consequently, as a person entitled to claim compensation for the deceased’s death?

Whether the Tribunal was required to assess compensation by considering the applicable minimum wages, loss of future prospects and other legally recognised heads of compensation?

Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹1,00,000 was liable to be set aside and the claim petition remanded for fresh adjudication?

The Court relied on Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, AIR 1987 SC 1690, recognising that a brother or other relative may qualify as a legal representative or dependent for purposes of a motor accident compensation claim.

It also referred to Geetaben Mukundbhai Doshi v. Bhikhubhai Nathabhai Gohel–Darbar, First Appeal No. 2250 of 2019, and Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Kushwaha, 2025 ACJ 414, on the meaning and assessment of dependency, including the relevance of the concept of a legal representative.

Mahant Shyamdas Guru Mohandas v. Lalaram M. Kori, AIR 2008 MP 47, was cited for recognising dependency in an extended relationship.

The Court further held that where the deceased’s income is not proved by documentary evidence, the applicable minimum wages should ordinarily form the basis for calculating just compensation, and that future prospects must be considered in accordance with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly restrictive approach by failing to properly examine whether the deceased’s younger brother was dependent upon him, despite the governing authorities recognising that dependency is not confined only to a spouse, minor child or parent.

The Court also noted that the Tribunal had not adequately applied the principles governing computation of compensation, including the use of minimum wages in the absence of documentary proof of income and the addition of future prospects under Pranay Sethi.

Since these issues required factual assessment and the High Court had not examined the merits in detail, it considered remand, rather than direct reassessment of compensation, to be appropriate.

The judgment and award dated 23 November 2022 in MACP No. 1200 of 2015, awarding ₹1,00,000, was quashed and set aside.

The claim petition was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, without being influenced by the earlier award.

Both parties were permitted to adduce further evidence, if desired.

The Tribunal was directed to decide the matter within three months, and the parties were directed to remain present before it on 28 September 2026.

The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the claim.