Legal representatives may claim motor accident compensation without full dependency; family pension excluded, limited compassionate-assistance adjustment applied.

Legal representatives under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act may maintain a death claim even without full dependency, because dependency affects quantification, not maintainability; major married earning sons were therefore not confined to conventional heads. Family pension received by the deceased was not part of her income for loss-of-dependency computation, so it was excluded. Financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 was deductible only to the extent of the specific pay-and-allowances component actually receivable, to prevent double recovery; a blanket partial deduction was incorrect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether major married sons who are earning legal representatives can maintain a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are confined only to conventional heads; (ii) Whether family pension received by the deceased could be included while assessing loss of dependency; (iii) Whether financial assistance receivable under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is to be deducted wholly or only to a limited extent from the compensation payable.

Issue (i): Whether major married sons who are earning legal representatives can maintain a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are confined only to conventional heads

Analysis: Section 166 permits a claim by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased in case of death. The expression "legal representative" is of wide import and is not confined to persons who were wholly dependent on the deceased. The right to apply for compensation is distinct from entitlement to the amount, and absence of full dependency does not extinguish the statutory claim. The reasoning also recognises that dependency is relevant to quantification, not to maintainability. The claimants, being legal representatives, were therefore entitled to pursue compensation beyond merely conventional heads.

Conclusion: The claim by the major married and earning sons was maintainable, and they were not restricted to compensation only under conventional heads.

Issue (ii): Whether family pension received by the deceased could be included while assessing loss of dependency

Analysis: Family pension payable to the deceased as widow was not income earned by her for the purpose of computing motor accident compensation. The award had correctly excluded that amount, and the High Court erred in adding it as part of the deceased's income. For computation of loss of dependency, only the actual salary, after permissible deductions, together with future prospects, could form the basis.

Conclusion: Family pension was not includible in the computation of loss of dependency.

Issue (iii): Whether financial assistance receivable under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is to be deducted wholly or only to a limited extent from the compensation payable

Analysis: The governing principle is to avoid double payment for the same head of loss. Financial assistance payable under the 2006 Rules towards pay and allowances equivalent to the deceased employee's last drawn emoluments is liable to be excluded to that extent, but other benefits such as family pension and similar entitlements are not deductible. The High Court's approach of deducting only a portion of the assistance was incorrect, and the matter also required caution because the record did not conclusively establish the claimants' actual eligibility to receive such assistance. The compensation was therefore to be determined independently, with adjustment only if financial assistance under the Rules was actually received or became payable.

Conclusion: Only the amount receivable under Rule 5(1) towards financial assistance equivalent to pay and allowances was liable to be adjusted, and not a blanket partial deduction on the basis adopted by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The compensation was recalibrated by recognizing the claimants' maintainable right as legal representatives, excluding family pension from income, applying one-third deduction towards personal expenses, and permitting adjustment only to the extent of any actual financial assistance under the 2006 Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: In a death claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, legal representatives may claim compensation irrespective of full dependency, while computation must exclude non-income benefits such as family pension and avoid double recovery by adjusting only the specific financial assistance actually receivable under the applicable compassionate-assistance rules.

---