Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even If Injured Dies During Proceedings For Reasons Unrelated To Injuries Sustained: Supreme Court

The original claimant, who was injured in a motor accident, had filed an appeal before the Apex Court seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and further enhanced by the High Court. The claimant, who was rendered 100% disabled by reason of the accident, unfortunately died during the pendency of the appeal, and the legal representatives substituted themselves in place of the deceased claimant/injured.

The Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria held, “The right to claim compensation for the injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident hence survives on the legal representatives of the injured even if the injured dies in the course of the proceedings for reasons not relatable to or having any nexus with the injuries sustained. Here the injured died in 2024, after the insertion to Section 166 by amendment. We also have a difference of opinion with the declaration of law in Bhagwati Bai which we need not dilate upon in the facts of this case where the inserted provision is squarely applicable.

AOR Shail Kumar Dwivedi represented the Appellant, while Advocate Atul Nigam represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the contention of the insurer that since the claim was for compensation for personal injury, the continuation of the proceedings could not be permitted by the legal representatives, going by Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and as interpreted by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhagwati Bai and Anr. v. Bablu and Mukund and Ors.(2007)

Reasoning

Dealing with the preliminary objection raised against the continuation of the proceedings after the victim died, the Bench referred to Bhagwati Bai (Supra) and noted that it was held therein that a claim for personal injury filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would abate on the death of the claimant and would not survive to his legal representatives except as regards the claim for pecuniary loss to the estate of the claimant. The Bench stated that it had a difference of opinion with the declaration of law in Bhagwati Bai (Supra).

The Bench then referred to the insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 167 by Act 32 of 2019 with effect from April 1, 2022 which says that the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of a 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.

Coming to the issue of quantum of compensation, the Bench found that there was no documentary evidence submitted to prove the salary or the agricultural income. While the Tribunal at the earlier stage had adopted Rs 8,000 as monthly income, on remand, Rs 4,030 was accepted as monthly income. Reference was made to the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (2011) wherein the Apex Court hadd held a Coolie to be entitled to Rs 4500 as monthly income in 2004.

“Definitely there would be incremental increase of income in the succeeding years which we determine at Rs.500/- per year which would bring the total income so computed to Rs.9,000/- as on 2013. Considering the fact that the injured was engaged as a skilled worker for which oral evidence was adduced, we are of the opinion that Rs.9,000/- can be safely accepted as his monthly income at the time of the accident, which he was deprived of fully because of the 100% disability”, it held.

“It is trite that what is awarded to an injured in a claim petition is just compensation and as held by this Court it cannot lead to a windfall for the injured claimant or his legal heirs”, it added. As per the Bench, when the consideration was with respect to the loss occasioned to the estate of the injured, the injured having died, the multiplier of 14 couldnot be applied. The same was reduced to 11, being the actual life span. It was also held that the victim not being engaged in regular employment, was entitled to 25% for future prospects, especially since his functional disability was 100%.

Thus, allowing the appeal and granting an enhanced compensation of Rs 20,37,095, the Bench further ordered, “The interest on the total award of Rs.20,30,095/- at the rate of 9% would run from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the payment is made.”

Cause Title: Dhannalal Alias Dhanraj (Dead) v. Nasir Khan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1177)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi

Respondent: Advocate Atul Nigam, AOR Priya Puri, Advocates Tanvi Nigam, Sachin Dubey, Riya Dogra, Sharad Kumar Puri, Lubhanshi Tanwar

Click here to read/download Judgment