Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Deep Shikha & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 6641-6642 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 22265-22266 of 2018]
Decided On : 13-05-2025
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 read with Section 140 - Death in motor accident - Legal Representative - A married daughter may be considered a legal representative but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by daughter that she was financially dependent on deceased - Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise - It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased - Sections 166 and 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on financial relationship between deceased and Claimant - Appellant No. 1 has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and she cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased - Impugned award partly affirmed. (Paras 13 and 14)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Death in motor accident - Legal Representative - Obligation of a child to maintain their parents in old age is as much of a duty as obligation of a parent to maintain their child during minority - Deceased, being only provider, would be assumed to be fulfilling this obligation, further reinforcing Appellant No. 2's status as a dependent - Untimely demise of deceased may create difficulties for Appellant No. 2 going forward, resulting in hardship - Even if Appellant No. 2 was not dependent on deceased at the time of accident, possibility of future dependency cannot be disregarded - Impugned order insofar as it pertains to compensation awarded to Appellant No. 1, upheld - Impugned order with respect to dismissal of claim of Appellant No. 2, set aside - Enhanced compensation of Rs.19,22,356/- awarded. (Paras 16 and 20)
Facts of the case:
By way of present appeals, the Appellants challenge common Judgment and order of Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur passed on 14.05.2018 whereby High Court reduced compensation payable to Appellant No. 1 and dismissed claim in so far as it relates Appellant No. 2 in a case arising out of a claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Findings of Court:
High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal's award as it relates to Appellant No. 2, mother of deceased. Appellant No. 2 was aged about 70 years of age at the time of accident resulting in the death of her daughter, the deceased, and was solely dependent on the deceased as she lived with her and had no independent income, there is no evidence on record to rebut the same.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By way of the present appeals, the Appellants challenge the common judgement and order of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur passed on 14.05.2018 whereby High Court reduced the compensation payable to Appellant No. 1 and dismissed the claim in so far as it relates Appellant No. 2 in a case arising out of a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 26.01.2008 at around 1:15 pm, the deceased, namely, Smt. Paras Sharma was on her two-wheeler and when she reached a road crossing where a Roadways bus (“offending vehicle”) stopped to her left and the negligently took a sudden right turn due to which the deceased came under the rear right-side tyre of the offending vehicle and succumbed to her injuries.
4. A claim petition was filed by the Appellants, who are the married daughter of the deceased (“Appellant No. 1”) and mother of the deceased (“Appellant No. 2”), respectively, seeking compensation of Rs. 54,30,740/-.
5. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2011, however, only allowed the claim petition to the extent of Rs. 15,97,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing the claim petition and in default of payment within 30 days and had observed that 9% interest shall be payable to the Appellants, holding the driver of the offending vehicle (“Respondent No. 2”), the owner of the offending vehicle (“Respondent No. 3”) and the insurer of the offending vehicle (“Respondent No. 1”), jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased to be between 50 and 55 years and determined her monthly income to be Rs. 24,406/-. It held that the Appellants were the legal heirs of the deceased and were to some extent dependent on her, presuming 50% dependency. Accordingly, applying a multiplier of 11, the Tribunal computed the loss of income at Rs. 15,84,000/-. In addition, it awarded Rs. 5,000/- to Appellant No. 1 under the head of loss of love and affection, and Rs. 5,000/- to Appellant No. 2 for loss of care and services of the deceased. A further sum of Rs. 3,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses.
6. The Claimants-Appellants and Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company preferred separate appeals before the High Court. The Claimants-Appellants were aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, seeking enhancement of the same. On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the award to Appellant No.1 i.e. the daughter of the deceased, on the ground that she was entitled to lesser compensation in light of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Insofar as Appellant No.2 i.e. the mother of the deceased is concerned, Respondent No. 1 argued that she is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever because she cannot be considered a legal heir of the deceased.
7. The High Court vide common impugned judgement dismissed the appeal filed by the Claimant-Appellants and partly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent No.1. Ultimately, the High Court modified the award and reduced the compensation awarded to Appellant No.1 to Rs.50,000/- and set aside the award qua Appellant No. 2 as they could not be considered as dependents of the deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation and in light of this Hon’ble Court’s judgement in Manjuri Bera & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, (2007) 10 SCC 634 held that only Appellant No.1 was entitled to receive compensation as admissible under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
8. Now the Appellants are before us challenging the impugned order and judgement of the High Court on the grounds that the High Court has misinterpreted this Court’s judgement in Manjuri Bera.
9. We have heard all the parties and perused the material on record.
10. It is not disputed that the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2 who was driving the offending vehicle owned by Respondent No. 3 which was insured by Respondent
Death in motor accident - A married daughter may be considered a legal representative but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by daughter that she was fin....
Legal heirs, including married daughters, can claim compensation exceeding the no-fault limits under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, irrespective of dependency status.
Financial dependency was established through evidence, necessitating a reassessment of compensation to account for the deceased's independent income and contributions to the family.
Legal representatives, including major children, are entitled to claim compensation regardless of dependency; the Tribunal erred in limiting the compensation amount based on dependency status.
Major married and earning children of a deceased have the right to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, irrespective of their dependency status.
Legal representatives of a deceased have a right to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, regardless of financial dependency, as established by precedents.
It is settled that legal representatives of deceased have a right to apply for compensation.
Non-dependent father as legal representative entitled to death compensation based on deceased son's notional income of Rs.25,000/- p.a., 40% future prospects, multiplier 18, filial consortium, loss o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
