Legal representative entitlement under motor accident law: brothers may claim compensation despite no financial dependency.

A claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable by a legal representative, and entitlement is not defeated merely because the claimant was not financially dependent on the deceased. Where the deceased left no parents, widow or children, married brothers may also maintain the claim as legal representatives. The Tribunal's findings on negligence and liability were not challenged, and the objection based solely on absence of dependency was rejected. The compensation award in favour of the brothers was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the married brothers of the deceased, being legal representatives though not dependent, were entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Analysis: The Tribunal's findings on negligence and liability were not challenged. On the question of compensation, the governing principle applied was that a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable by a legal representative, and entitlement to compensation is not defeated merely because a legal representative was not financially dependent on the deceased. The reasoning relied on the settled position that, in the absence of parents, widow and children, brothers can also claim compensation as legal representatives.

Conclusion: The brothers of the deceased were entitled to maintain the claim and to be awarded compensation, and the objection based on absence of dependency was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The award granting compensation was upheld and the challenge to the entitlement of the brothers failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lies at the instance of a legal representative, and the right to compensation is not extinguished merely because the claimant is not shown to be dependent on the deceased.

---