Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
MACT awards and deposit of compensation - The MACT awards a specific sum to claimants, often with interest, and directs the insurance company or responsible party to deposit the amount, sometimes in phased manner, or in fixed deposits until minors reach majority ["Seema Devi VS Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd - Delhi"]. ["Abhishek Chakraborty, S/o. Late Subrata Chakaborty VS Bulbuli Borphukan, W/o. Sri Dilip Borphukan - Gauhati"] ["Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Reena - Delhi"].
Post-death deposit and disbursement to children - When the petitioner or deceased's dependents (children, spouse, parents) are involved, the awarded amount is typically deposited in their names or in fixed deposits until they attain majority, ensuring their welfare ["Seema Devi VS Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd - Delhi"]. ["Abhishek Chakraborty, S/o. Late Subrata Chakaborty VS Bulbuli Borphukan, W/o. Sri Dilip Borphukan - Gauhati"] ["Harjinder Kaur VS Gagandeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana"].
Awarding to minors and dependents - The courts often allocate specific portions of the compensation to minors, with some amounts kept in fixed deposits until they reach majority, and others released for immediate needs like education or household expenses ["Seema Devi VS Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd - Delhi"]. ["Harjinder Kaur VS Gagandeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana"] ["Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented By The Regional Manager VS Roopjyoti Kalita @ Gogoi, (On The Death Of Nibha Kalita), W/o. Late Srimanta Kalita - Gauhati"].
Issues after petitioner/deceased's death - When the petitioner or dependants die after the award, the remaining amount is often deposited or disbursed to legal heirs or nominees, with some courts emphasizing proper deposit in bank accounts or fixed deposits to secure the funds ["Seema Devi VS Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd - Delhi"]. ["Abhishek Chakraborty, S/o. Late Subrata Chakaborty VS Bulbuli Borphukan, W/o. Sri Dilip Borphukan - Gauhati"] ["Raj Kumari VS Kuldeep Raj - Jammu and Kashmir"].
Solution for non-deposited amounts and deceased petitioner - Courts have directed insurance companies or responsible authorities to deposit the remaining balance within stipulated timelines. If the petitioner or beneficiaries die, the amounts are to be disbursed to legal heirs or guardians, with some courts emphasizing the necessity of proper documentation like succession certificates ["Seema Devi VS Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd - Delhi"]. ["Raj Kumari VS Kuldeep Raj - Jammu and Kashmir"] ["Neetu Devi VS Ramesh Kumar - Punjab and Haryana"].
Main points and insights:
In cases where amounts are not deposited or are misappropriated, courts have directed insurance companies or responsible authorities to deposit the remaining balance within specific periods ["Seema Devi VS Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd - Delhi"], ["Raj Kumari VS Kuldeep Raj - Jammu and Kashmir"].
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["Seema Devi VS Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd - Delhi"]- ["Abhishek Chakraborty, S/o. Late Subrata Chakaborty VS Bulbuli Borphukan, W/o. Sri Dilip Borphukan - Gauhati"]- ["Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Reena - Delhi"]- ["Harjinder Kaur VS Gagandeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented By The Regional Manager VS Roopjyoti Kalita @ Gogoi, (On The Death Of Nibha Kalita), W/o. Late Srimanta Kalita - Gauhati"]- ["Raj Kumari VS Kuldeep Raj - Jammu and Kashmir"]
Imagine this: A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awards compensation to an injured claimant, but before the money is deposited or disbursed, the petitioner passes away, leaving behind two children. The award amount remains undeposited. What now? This is a common yet distressing scenario for families seeking justice after road accidents.
In this blog, we'll explore the legal solution under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Note: This is general information based on case laws and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The question arises: MACT awarded. Thereafter petitioner died. Two children. Amount not deposited. Solution?
The good news is that the right to the awarded compensation survives the claimant's death and passes to their legal representatives, such as the two children. The Claims Tribunal retains authority to direct the owner or insurer to deposit the amount, identify heirs, and disburse it appropriately—even if the children are minors. This applies irrespective of the cause of death. Gohar Mohammed VS Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - 2023 2 Supreme 470Meena (Dead) Represented through LRs. VS Prayagraj - 2025 6 Supreme 198Shanti Sai VS Vesta - 2007 0 Supreme(MP) 887
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant's right to compensation for injury survives upon death, with no nexus required between the death and the accident. Section 166 facilitates this.
As stated in Gohar Mohammed VS Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - 2023 2 Supreme 470: Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.
In Meena (Dead) Represented through LRs. VS Prayagraj - 2025 6 Supreme 198, the claimant died during appeal; legal heirs (husband and two daughters) were substituted: Husband and the two daughters, who are the legal heirs of the original claimant, have been substituted as the appellants... Remaining amount, after deducing amount which is already paid to claimant shall be paid to legal heirs of claimant (deceased) within a period of two months, equally.
Similarly, in Shanti Sai VS Vesta - 2007 0 Supreme(MP) 887, a minor claimant died post-award; the amount went to the mother as sole heir: Since Arjun, the aforesaid claimant, has expired, the right to receive the aforesaid amount has naturally now accrued to his mother Smt. Shanti Bai.
Children, as Class I heirs, typically qualify and may receive equal shares. N. JAYASREE VS CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - 2021 7 Supreme 481
Even if the amount isn't deposited due to the claimant's death, the Tribunal can intervene. It may order deposit, verify heirs via summary inquiry, and apportion funds.
Deepal Girishbhai Sonis VS United India Insurance Co. LTD. Baroda - 2004 3 Supreme 602 clarifies: Where the Claims Tribunal thinks that the actual payment to the claimant is likely to take time because of the identification and the fixation of the legal heirs of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal may call for the amount of compensation awarded, to be deposited with the Tribunal and then proceed with the identification of the legal heirs for deciding the payment of compensation to each of the legal heirs.
This is echoed in Deepal Girishbhai Soni VS United India Insurance Company Limited Baroda - 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 260, KAMLA BAI VS BHANWAR SINGH - 1999 0 Supreme(MP) 682, and Mary VS Rajendran - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 493: Rule 228... Where the Claims Tribunal feels that the disbursement of actual amount due to the claimant is likely to take time because of the identification and the fixation of legal heirs of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal may call for the amount of compensation awarded, to be deposited with the claims Tribunal...
The Tribunal can summon documents (death certificate, FIR, succession certificate), consult authorities, and order deposit within timelines like 30 days. Deepal Girishbhai Sonis VS United India Insurance Co. LTD. Baroda - 2004 3 Supreme 602Mary VS Rajendran - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 493
Children are core legal representatives. Courts often divide shares equally or proportionally. For instance, in Khem Raj Chettri VS Hem Bahadur Chettri - 2024 Supreme(Sikk) 19, 66% was split equally between two minor children (33% each), with the spouse getting 34%.
If minors, safeguards apply: fixed deposits till majority, with periodic interest release. Shanti Sai VS Vesta - 2007 0 Supreme(MP) 887Rajesh VS Rajbir Singh - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 362AJIT CHANGMAI vs BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE notes: The Registry shall ensure that 35 % of the awarded amount including interest is fixed deposited....
Broader dependency losses, like parental consortium, may factor in if relevant, fixed per Pranay Sethi guidelines. Jamanti Devi vs Maheshwar Rai
N. JAYASREE VS CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - 2021 7 Supreme 481 expands: Every legal representative who suffers on account of death... should have a remedy... Term ‘legal representative’ should be given a wider interpretation...
Prior payments are deducted before final disbursement. Meena (Dead) Represented through LRs. VS Prayagraj - 2025 6 Supreme 198
Here's a recommended roadmap:
Insurer/owner can't evade liability due to death. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS PRABHA DEVI - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 240
Exceptions: Contributory negligence needs causal link (helmet non-use insufficient alone). Khem Raj Chettri VS Hem Bahadur Chettri - 2024 Supreme(Sikk) 19
Tax on interest possible, but certificates available. HANSAGURI PRAFULCHANDRA LADHANI VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANYLTD - 2006 0 Supreme(Guj) 636
Families shouldn't lose hope—justice persists beyond the claimant's life. For tailored guidance, reach out to a motor accident law expert.
References (Key Cases):1. Deepal Girishbhai Sonis VS United India Insurance Co. LTD. Baroda - 2004 3 Supreme 602 - Deposit procedure.2. Gohar Mohammed VS Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - 2023 2 Supreme 470 - Survival rights.3. Meena (Dead) Represented through LRs. VS Prayagraj - 2025 6 Supreme 198 - Heir substitution.4. N. JAYASREE VS CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - 2021 7 Supreme 481 - Legal reps definition.5. Deepal Girishbhai Soni VS United India Insurance Company Limited Baroda - 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 260, Mary VS Rajendran - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 493, KAMLA BAI VS BHANWAR SINGH - 1999 0 Supreme(MP) 682 - Tribunal powers.6. Shanti Sai VS Vesta - 2007 0 Supreme(MP) 887 - Minor heir disbursement.
#MACTClaims #LegalHeirs #MotorAccidentLaw
The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 47,75,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Rs. 40,00,000/- was to be deposited in the name of the deceased person's wife in a phased manner, i.e., a deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- to be made every two years. ... Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining/balance amount as modified by this Court with interest at 9% per annum within four weeks. The MACT is directed to release the awarded ....
The appellant has already deposited the 50% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs.5,55,000/- as per direction of the Court. ... He also submits that the evidence of the claimant’s husband was to effect that he supported his wife (claimant) and two children from his income as a Government servant. ... The opposite party No. 1 owner cum driver of the offending vehicle was directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimant as the vehicle was not insured at the ....
Therefore, this Court sees no reason to dilute the compensation awarded by the MACT. 8.13. ... The wife of the deceased, Reena was held entitled to 50%, and the parents were held entitled to 25% each of the awarded amount. Factual Background 2. ... The MACT found that as per the testimonies of PW-1 and the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) as well as the record, that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. ... Lack of an....
Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). ... Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the ....
that the amount awarded is not frittered away. ... Facts regarding death of husband of petitioner No.1 and passing of award by MACT, Tarn Taran are not disputed. ... In terms of award dated 13.10.2014 passed by the MACT, Tarn Taran, an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- each was deposited in the name of petitioners No.2 to 4 for a period of ten years in Punjab and Sind Bank and petitioner No.1, being the mother, stood as gua....
(i) From the awarded compensation, Respondent No.1, spouse of the deceased, is entitled to 34%; and (ii) 66% of the total amount of compensation awarded shall be divided equally amongst the Respondents No.4 and 5 (minor children of the deceased), i.e., 33% ... It is seen that the Learned MACT vide the impugned Judgment, has not divided the compensation awarded amongst the Respondents No.1 to 5. The Respondents No.2 and 3 being the parents-in-law of the deceased canno....
However, learned tribunal granted a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the observation that the claimant husband was not dependent on the victim and failed to take note of the fact that the victim also left behind two minor children. ... The amount already paid, shall be adjusted against the above mentioned awarded amount. ... The Registry shall ensure that 35 % of the awarded amount including interest is fixed deposited....
So, Ext. 12 is also not considered in this case. But it is not disputed that the deceased died in an accident on the date as stated in the claim petition. ... Member, MACT has awarded an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-under the conventional head which is liable to be set aside and modified. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the ld. ... Such labour do not have the resources to earn sufficiently to make the two ends meet and more often t....
The deposited amount, which is lying in the names of petitioner nos.2 to 4 shall not children in the amount of compensation awarded by the and petitioner nos.2 to 4 are her children born from no.1 as well as her two children as the joint the amount awarded by the Tribuna....
2 the learned MACT, Hisar for release of the amount lying deposited in Petitioner is wife of late Krishan, who died in a motor petitioner alongwith her minor children and mother of deceased compensation falling to the share of the petitioner, who is a major,shall
If there is any surplus amount deposited by the respondent, after payment of the decreetal amount awarded by the MACT, Mumbai and modified by this order, such surplus amount shall be returned to the respondent by the MACT, Mumbai. d. If any additional amount of Court fees is required to be paid by the appellant, such amount of additional Court fees shall be paid by the appellant within two weeks from the date of computation of the short fall by the MACT, Mumbai. e. Judgment and award dated 25th July, 2005 passed by the MACT, Mumbai in MACP No. 1789 of 2000 is modified by th....
Amount, if any, deposited with the Registry be sent to the MACT concerned within two months from today. Let the lower court record be sent back and copy of this judgment be placed in the connected appeal.
6. Let the lower court record be sent back and copy of this judgment be placed in the connected appeal. Amount, if any, deposited with the Registry be sent to the MACT concerned within two months from today.
4. It would thus be seen that neither the application filed with the revision petition nor the affidavit filed thereafter really explains the delay in filing the revision petition. That the petitioner has a good case and from the documents and the facts it is clear that petitioner is not at all responsible for any payment. Therefore the delay occurred in filing the Revision Petition may be condoned in the interest of justice.” Even after that to avoid technicality the petitioner has deposited the entire award amount.
The petitioner has stated that all the above was done collusively behind the back of the petitioner and without any notice whatsoever to the petitioner. 8, with whom the money was deposited by the petitioner disbursed the awarded amount to respondents no. The petitioner has alleged that even prior to the receipt of the letter by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 to 6, thereby practically gobbling the entire amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs deposited (i.e. leaving a balance of Rs. 411/-).
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
