Mumbai MACT Rules Pension Alone Cannot Establish Loss Of Dependency Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act

Mumbai, August 4, 2026: The Mumbai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has held that receipt of pension alone cannot be treated as a "source of income" for determining loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The observation came while deciding a claim arising from the death of an 80-year-old retired government school teacher, who was allegedly run over by a BEST bus while waiting at a bus stop on V.P. Road in June 2023. At the time of her death, the deceased was receiving her own pension along with a family pension following her husband's demise.

Claim For Dependency Compensation

The claim petition was filed by her 56-year-old son, who contended that he was financially dependent on his mother's pension and sought compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

He argued that she was drawing a monthly pension of about Rs 35,916 and an additional family pension of Rs 11,717, which she used to meet the family's day-to-day expenses after he allegedly lost his source of livelihood.

However, the MACT Chairperson rejected the contention, observing that the claimant had failed to establish actual financial dependency on his mother's pension through cogent evidence.

The tribunal noted that the claimant had been employed as a Charge Engineer with BEST and was drawing a salary of around Rs 65,000 per month at the time of the accident.

Although disciplinary proceedings were later initiated against him and he was subsequently terminated before being reinstated, those events occurred after the accident and could not establish dependency on the date of his mother's death.

Tribunal's Findings

The tribunal further observed that pension is a personal entitlement of the pensioner and that the claimant had failed to produce bank records, proof of transfer of pension amounts, evidence of a joint account, household expenditure records or testimony from independent witnesses to demonstrate that he was being maintained by his mother. Mere assertions in pleadings and oral evidence were held to be insufficient to prove dependency.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the tribunal observed that while a legal representative is entitled to maintain a motor accident claim, compensation under the head of loss of dependency can be granted only when actual financial dependence on the deceased is established. Dependency, the tribunal said, is a question of fact and cannot be presumed merely because the claimant is the deceased's legal heir.

Also Watch:

Compensation Awarded

While the tribunal declined to award compensation towards loss of dependency, it granted Rs 84,000 under conventional heads—Rs 18,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 18,000 towards loss to estate, and Rs 48,000 towards parental consortium—along with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/