The Sikkim High Court has held that siblings-in-law of a deceased can be treated as dependents for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, provided their financial dependency is established through evidence.

The Court observed that there is no hard-and-fast rule for determining dependency and that the question must be decided on the facts and evidence of each case.

Chief Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque remarked that: “The claimants, no doubt, fall within the expression of 'legal representatives. The question is whether the claimants can be treated as dependents of the deceased sister-in-law. There is no hard and fast rule for defining the expression 'dependent'.

Background:

The case arose from a fatal accident in Sikkim in which Toran Suresh Punamiya, her husband Suresh Punamiya and their two minor children died after the vehicle in which they were travelling to Lachung fell approximately 700 feet off a cliff. The deceased and her family were permanent residents of Maharashtra and had been visiting Sikkim as tourists.

The deceased's siblings-in-law subsequently filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, awarded them ₹85,59,880 with 6% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The insurer challenged the award, contending that the claimants were adult, financially independent persons and could not be treated as dependents of their sister-in-law. It also argued that the business run by the deceased and her husband had been inherited by the claimants, meaning there was no actual loss of dependency.

The Court held that the claimants, though siblings-in-law of the deceased, fell within the expression “legal representatives” under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It clarified that being a legal representative does not necessarily require a person to be a legal heir. 

On the question of dependency, the Court observed that there is no hard-and-fast rule and that dependency is a question of fact to be determined from the evidence. In the present case, the claimants had specifically pleaded financial dependency on the income generated from the business jointly run by the deceased and her husband. Their evidence, including the deceased's Income Tax Returns, showed that the business was the family's sole source of income. 

The Court noted that the insurer neither effectively challenged the claim of dependency in cross-examination nor produced evidence showing that the claimants had independent sources of income. There was also no evidence that the claimants had continued the business after the deceased's death.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the finding of loss of dependency and found no ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 

The Court further observed that, applying the presumption under Section 21 of the Hindu Succession Act regarding simultaneous deaths, the claimants could potentially have succeeded to the estate of the deceased's children, including the compensation claim arising from the mother's death. 

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's award of ₹85.59 lakh with 6% annual interest. 

Case Name: Branch Manager v/s Hasmukh Pannalal & Ors.

Case No.: MAC App No. 26 of 2024

Date of Decision: 10.08.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order