Motor Accident Claims | 'Legal Representative' Is One Who Suffers Loss; Need Not Be Spouse, Child Or Parent Of Deceased : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the term 'legal representative' under the Motor Vehicle Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased's incomeThe Court said that if the claimants were dependent on the deceased's income, then they shall be granted compensation. A "legal representative" is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child, the Court held, referring to precedents.The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”), while awarding compensation, didn't consider the 24-year-old deceased-Appellants' (Father and Sister) as dependents of the deceased. The MACT held that the father was not dependent on the income of the deceased and since the father was alive, the younger sister cannot also be held as a dependent of the deceased. The High Court upheld this part of the MACT's ruling, leading the Appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned decision, the Court observed that the Court below had erred in refusing to consider the Appellants as dependents of the deceased.Citing Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 and N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (2022) 14 SCC 712, the Court noted that proving loss of dependency alone is sufficient to claim compensation. It clarified that compensation is not limited to spouses, parents, or children but extends to all individuals affected by the deceased's death."In our view, the term “legal representative” should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased..We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation.", the court observed in N. Jayasree's case.Applying the law to the facts of the case, the court observed: “In our view, in furtherance of the above exposition of law, the appellant Nos.4 and 5 being the father and younger sister of the deceased, both not financially independent, would fall under the definition of legal representatives for the purpose of claiming the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and they were considered as dependents upon the income of the deceased, as he was doing wholesale business of selling fruits to meet the day-to-day expenses of the family.”Thus, the Court considered the Appellants were dependents and awarded them compensation.Case Title: SADHANA TOMAR & ORS. VERSUS ASHOK KUSHWAHA & ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 309Click here to read/download the order Appearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. Salil Paul, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mr. Sahil Paul, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Dayal, Adv. Ms. Kanupriya Mehta, Adv.

Motor Accident Claims | 'Legal Representative' Is One Who Suffers Loss; Need Not Be Spouse, Child Or Parent Of Deceased : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags