In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “legal representative” under the Motor Vehicles Act should be interpreted broadly, ensuring that compensation is not limited to the spouse, parents, or children of a deceased accident victim. Instead, any dependent suffering a financial loss due to the victim’s death has a rightful claim.
The case arose after a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) denied compensation to the father and younger sister of a 24-year-old accident victim, reasoning that they were not financially dependent. The High Court upheld this decision, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Reversing the lower courts’ findings, the Supreme Court emphasized that a claimant only needs to prove financial dependence on the deceased to qualify as a legal representative. Citing previous rulings, the Court clarified that dependency determines eligibility for compensation, not just familial relationships.
Applying this principle, the Court acknowledged the father and sister as dependents, noting that the deceased supported them through his wholesale fruit business. Consequently, they were granted compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
