Major earning children are eligible for dependency compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act regardless of independent income.

On July 18, 2006, the deceased, Mukundbhai Ghelabhai Doshi (70 years old), was fatally struck by a negligently driven motorcycle while walking.

The claim petition was filed by his widow and two adult sons. During the pendency of the proceedings in 2012, the widow passed away.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajkot, awarded only Rs. 55,000/-, holding that the sons were not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency as they were adults with independent incomes and the widow had died.

The claimants appealed to the High Court seeking enhancement and challenging the eligibility of major sons to claim dependency.

Whether major, earning sons are "legal representatives" entitled to claim compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

Whether the Tribunal erred in its quantum assessment by excluding future loss of dependency and awarding meager sums under conventional heads?

Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits "all or any of the legal representatives" to claim compensation.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender Singh (2020), establishing that even major, earning sons are legal representatives and the Tribunal must consider their dependency rather than limiting claims to conventional heads.

Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) regarding married daughters.

Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021), which mandates that dependency must be assessed at the time of filing the petition.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) for conventional heads and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) for parental consortium.

The High Court observed that Section 166 of the MV Act is broad in its definition of claimants.

The court rejected the Insurance Company's argument that adult sons with independent incomes cannot claim dependency, noting that as "legal representatives," they are entitled to a full assessment.

Crucially, the court held that because the widow was alive and a co-claimant at the time the petition was filed, the right to claim dependency was established at the outset.

The Court verified the deceased’s income through Income Tax Returns (Exh. 70), assessing his net annual income at Rs. 1,81,038/-. Applying a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 5 (given the deceased's age of 70), the court recalculated the loss of dependency to be Rs. 6,03,460/-.

It enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 7,84,960/-, including Rs. 6,03,460/- for loss of dependency, Rs. 1,45,200/- for consortium (3 claimants), and Rs. 18,150/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 7,29,960/- with 9% interest per annum within six weeks.