#Section 166

The High Court ruled that brothers of a deceased victim qualify as 'legal representatives' under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and are entitled to claim compensation without proving financial dependency. The Tribunal's rejection of the claim solely on dependency grounds was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication within one year.

The Allahabad HC held quadriplegia warrants 100% functional disability despite 70% medical certification, granted 50% future prospects under Rule 220A, allowed multiplier-based attendant charges, and awarded past medical expenses conservatively despite missing bills, nearly doubling the MACT award for a 22-year-old conductor.

The Calcutta High Court held that a deliberately caused act can still qualify as an ‘accident’ under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, raising the award to Rs 60 lakh with 6 % interest and rejecting the insurer’s Mediclaim set-off claim.

High Court enhances compensation in a motor accident claim, clarifying assessment of income, future prospects and multiplier under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that claimants may amend their motor accident compensation petition from a fault-based claim under Section 166 to a no-fault claim under Section 163-A even after evidence closure and during final arguments. This reinforces the welfare-oriented purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring victims’ families are not penalized for technical pleading errors at the last stage of litigation.