NAINITAL v. Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the

rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Smt. Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:- “31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Reshma Kumari & Others Vs. Madan Mohan & Another, reported on (2013) 9 SCC 65. The relevant paragraph of 3 the judgment is extracted herein below:- “42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure preceding para is made out. the circumstances noted ……………..

43.6 Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 41 above.”

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is proposition of law, that brothers being married and having their own family cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased younger brother. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that they have categorically stated in their statements that they were residing in village and were solely dependent on the income of the deceased brother and that submissions made by them in the statements in the claim petition have not been reverted by the Insurance Company. He would further submit that the statements of PW-1 & PW-2 were given in affidavit. The 4 Insurance Company, who was defendant no. 1, has cross examined the claimants, which is paper no. 36 kha/1 in which claimants have stated that they were living in joint family. In paragraph no. 4 of the cross examination, it has been stated that deceased was the only earning member. The younger brother of deceased, respondent no. 2/ Anand Rawat is engaged in agriculture work and was dependent on the deceased. The funeral of the deceased was also performed by them, as he was unmarried.

9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Raman Bhai Prabhat Bhai and Another, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 234, herein, it was held that in Indian family brothers, sisters and brother’s children and sometimes, foster children live together and they are often dependent upon the bread winner of family and are entitled for claim, if they are legal representatives of the deceased. Paragraph nos. 13 & 15 of the judgment reads as under:-

13. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of Indian society. Every 5 paid. law. We compensation representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with should well-known principles remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai [AIR 1977 Guj 195 : 1977 ACJ 253 : 1977 TAC 366] and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under the Act Section 110-A of representative of the deceased. 15. Before concluding we may add that although the Act was extensively modified after the receipt of the report of the Law Commission, Parliament did not choose to amend Section 110-A of the Act by defining the expression “legal representatives” in relation to claims under Chapter VIII of the Act as “the spouse, parent and children of the deceased” as recommended by the Law Commission. The Law Commission had observed in its 85th Report that it would be appropriate to assign to the expression “legal representative” the same meaning as had been given to the expression “representative” for the purposes of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and that would effectively carry out the purpose of social justice underlying Chapter VIII of the Actto which the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was the nearest if he is a 6 approximation. This recommendation was made after referring to the divergent views expressed by the various High Courts on the meaning of the expression “legal representatives” in Section 110-A of the Act. The fact that Parliament declined to take any action on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India suggests that Parliament intended that the expression “legal representative” in Section 110-A of the Act should be given a wider meaning and it should not be confined to the spouse, parent and children of the deceased.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted herein below:- the deceased being

14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of representatives have a compensation and it would be the bounden duty of application the Tribunal irrespective of representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only………………………………” fact whether to apply consider

11. Learned counsel for the claimants has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2007) 10 SCC

643. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted herein below:- 7 joined

8. Section 166 of the Act corresponds to Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “the Old Act”) and the same reads as follows: “166. Application compensation.—(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. ………. 12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 : AIR 1989 SC 1589] the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression “legal representative”. As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 482 : AIR 1987 SC 1690] 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 and child.”

12. Learned counsel for the claimants has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Tomar v. 8 Ashok Kushwaha, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted herein below:-

13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204], that the objective of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. Another question which arose for our loss of for the purpose of consideration, as dependency, the deduction of annual income should be 1/3rd or 1/4th, as there are five claimants. The Tribunal did not consider appellant Nos. 4 and 5, namely, the father and the younger sister, respectively, of the deceased as dependents, stating therein that the father was not dependent on the income of the deceased and since the father is alive, the younger sister is also not dependent on the income of the deceased. This Court in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed that 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.”

13. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that as the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation and the trial therein is summary in nature and claimant has to prove the factum of accident and dependency. Strict rules of pleadings are not applicable before the MACT.

14. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the award passed by the learned MACT on the ground that the claimants, being brothers of the deceased, were not dependent on the income of the 9 deceased. As for the elder brother, namely Hukum Singh, he is married and living separately along with this family. While the younger brother of the deceased, Anand Singh, is also married with his own family, though he was residing with the deceased.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the MACT concerned, contrary to the pleadings in the claim petition have held that the claimants resided in a joint family and therefore, they were dependants of the deceased.

16. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Both the learned counsel for the parties have filed their written submissions, which have been taken on record.

17. In terms of Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to the compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The term “legal representative” has not been defined under this Act or Rules thereof. As per Section 2(11) of CPC, “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes 10 any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased.

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) observed that a legal representative is one who suffers on account of the death of the person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. Therefore, in light of the above, this court finds that the claimants were entitled to file the claim petition.

19. As to the question regarding the dependency of the claimants upon the deceased, this Court finds that claimant no. 1, in his statement given before the Tribunal has in clear terms submitted that all the brothers were residing in a joint family and the claimants, residing in the village, were dependant on the income of the deceased.

20. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention to the fact that it has been submitted by claimant no. 1 that his and his family members name is registered separately in the family register of the village. As such, he was not dependant on the income of the deceased. Merely for the fact that name of the claimants 11 and their family are entered separately in the family register does not imply that they were not residing in a joint family. Furthermore, the appellant has not adduced any evidence in the contrary to the statement given by the claimants that they were residing in a joint family and were dependant on the income of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the claimants were dependents of the deceased. No other points have been argued or pleaded in the appeal. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

21. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf2 8cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F41 8755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH (Alok Mahra, J.)

18.09.2025 12