Adult married sons may claim compensation as legal representatives, irrespective of dependency.

The appellants challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award dated 30 November 2019, which declined to entertain their compensation claim on the merits because the deceased’s sons were adults and exonerated the insurer because the tractor’s trolley was uninsured.

The High Court considered whether the adult sons could claim compensation and whether the insurer was properly exonerated.

Whether the deceased’s adult sons were entitled to claim compensation as legal representatives, notwithstanding their age or dependency status.

Whether the insurer could be exonerated on the ground that the trolley attached to the tractor was not separately insured.

Whether, and to what extent, compensation should be enhanced on the facts of the case.

Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act permits all or any legal representatives of a deceased person to claim compensation; a legal representative’s lack of dependency does not by itself extinguish the right to compensation. The Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356, and the principle in Manjuri Bera that a major, married, or earning son may remain a legal representative entitled to maintain a claim.

On insurance, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinnamma, 2004 (7) JT 167, and Saudan Singh v. Nanhi Devi, F.A. No. 2952/2017 (Allahabad High Court, decided 2 February 2021), as applied in M.A. No. 3934/2023, for the proposition that separate insurance of a tractor trolley was not required in the circumstances where the tractor and trolley were being used for agricultural purposes.

Applying Birender and Manjuri Bera, the Court held that the appellants’ status as adult sons did not bar their claim and treated appellants 1 and 2 as dependents.

It assessed the deceased’s monthly income at the minimum wage for a skilled labourer—₹8,810—deducted one-third for personal expenses, applied a multiplier of seven based on the deceased’s age of 65, and allowed no future prospects.

It added ₹80,000 for loss of consortium, but limited the enhancement to the appeal’s valuation of ₹5,00,000.

On insurance, it concluded that the insurer had been wrongly exonerated under the authorities it cited and made the owner, driver, and insurer jointly and severally liable.

The Court enhanced the compensation, subject to the appeal’s valuation, to ₹5,00,000, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment.

The owner, driver, and insurer were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.