Allahabad High Court limits non-dependent married daughters’ accident-death compensation to ₹50,000

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of Champa, who died from injuries sustained in a motor accident on 12 November 2016 while travelling in a jeep.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded them ₹24,86,912 with interest at 7% per annum.

The insurer appealed, contending that the claimants—three married daughters of the deceased—were not dependent on her and could therefore recover, at most, compensation under Section 140.

The claimants maintained that legal representatives could claim under Section 166 regardless of dependency, relying on Supreme Court decisions concerning married and earning children.

Whether a married son or daughter who is a legal representative, but was not dependent on the deceased, is entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Whether, in the absence of dependency, the claimants’ compensation should be confined to the amount payable under Section 140 of the Act

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act permits a claim by a legal representative; the expression “legal representative” is broader than “legal heir” and is not confined to specified close relatives (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, AIR 1987 SC 1690; Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643).

The court treated the claimant’s status as a legal representative as distinct from proof of loss of dependency, which it considered relevant to the assessment of compensation.

It relied on Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 INSC 675, for the proposition that a daughter is ordinarily presumed, upon marriage, to be supported by her matrimonial household unless the contrary is established.

Applying these authorities, the court held that non-dependent legal representatives in this case were limited to compensation under Section 140.

It considered this line of authority controlling over the decisions relied on by the claimants, including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356; Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 INSC 192; and Jitendra Kumar v. Sanjay Prasad, AIR Online 2025 SC 758.

The court treated the claimants’ status as legal representatives and their alleged dependency as separate questions.

Although legal representatives may fall within Section 166, it considered dependency relevant to determining the compensation payable and relied on Deep Shikha concerning the ordinary presumption of a married daughter’s support by her matrimonial household.

Because it was undisputed that the claimants were not dependent on their mother, the court concluded that the Tribunal’s Section 166 award was unsustainable and that the claimants’ entitlement should be confined to Section 140.

It preferred Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, Manjuri Bera and Deep Shikha over the authorities cited by the claimants.

The Tribunal’s award was modified: instead of ₹24,86,912, the claimants were awarded ₹50,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to be apportioned equally among them.