Legal representatives cannot be denied motor accident compensation solely for lack of financial dependency.

On 22 October 2000, a jeep carrying the claimants and their relatives allegedly left the road and crashed, causing injuries and fatalities

The Tribunal dismissed MACP Nos. 2406, 2409 and 2411 of 2000, reasoning that the claimants were not financially dependent on the deceased; it partly allowed MACP No. 2408 of 2000 and awarded ₹89,320 with interest at 7.5% per annum

The claimants appealed, challenging the dismissal of the three fatal-accident claims and, in relation to MACP No. 2408, the assessment of compensation

1. Whether a claimant who is a legal representative of a deceased road-accident victim may maintain a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act despite not being financially dependent on the deceased.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the three claims solely for want of financial dependency, and whether those claims could be decided afresh.

3. Whether the award in MACP No. 2408 of 2000 required enhancement, including on the ground that future prospects had not been considered.

Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act permits the legal representatives of a deceased person to apply for compensation; the Act does not confine that right to financially dependent family members.

The term “legal representative,” undefined in the Motor Vehicles Act, is understood broadly in light of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and may include persons who represent the deceased’s estate or suffer loss on account of the death.

The Court relied on Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel v. United India Insurance Co., Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender and N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. for the distinction between the right to maintain a claim and entitlement to, and apportionment of, compensation.

It also referred to A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy on the distinction between dependency loss and loss to the deceased’s estate where claimants are not dependants.

The Tribunal acknowledged that legal representatives could bring a claim but dismissed the three petitions because the claimants were not financially dependent on the deceased.

The High Court held that this approach failed to apply the broad meaning of “legal representative” under Section 166 and the cited authorities, which distinguish a claimant’s standing to apply from the claimant’s ultimate entitlement and share of compensation.

The Court also noted that the record did not establish that the deceased had not financially assisted the claimants, and that the issue had not been raised or proved before the Tribunal.

Because the merits and appropriate compensation remained to be determined, the Court remanded the three dismissed claims for fresh consideration and expressly left their merits open.

First Appeal Nos. 182, 184 and 185 of 2008 were allowed; the Tribunal’s dismissal of MACP Nos. 2406, 2409 and 2411 of 2000 was set aside, and those claims were remanded for fresh decision after permitting the parties to lead evidence.

The Tribunal was directed to hear the matters on 26 November 2026 and decide them within three months; the High Court clarified that it had not considered their merits.