Major, Married & Earning Children Of Deceased Victim Have Right To Apply For Motor Accident Compensation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court modified the compensation awarded by the MACT by increasing it.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the major, married, and earning children of a deceased victim, as the legal representatives, have the right to apply for motor accident compensation.
The Court modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) award by increasing the compensation awarded to the dependants of the deceased. The Bench allowed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which did not include the Appellants as the dependants of the deceased.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that “on a perusal of the statement of Shashi Kumar, the son of the deceased (Appellant No.2 herein), annexed as Annexure P6, was working at a petrol pump, while the other son was involved in temporary employment opportunities only. Both of them were residing with the deceased. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased. Similarly…there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation.”
Advocate Divyadeep Walia represented the Appellants, while Advocate Vandita Nain appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The High Court had accepted the contention of the Insurance Company that the major sons and the married daughter of the deceased were not dependent on the deceased for sustenance. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the High Court erred in excluding Appellants as the dependants of the deceased.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held, “We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on the dependents of the deceased.”
The Bench relied on its decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender (2020), wherein it was expounded that “major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the application, irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not.”
The Court noted that one of the major sons of the deceased was working at a petrol pump, while the other was involved in temporary employment opportunities only.
“Both of them were residing with the deceased. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased,” it remarked.
The Court held, “Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (Supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation. Therefore, in view of this, the High Court erred in excluding these dependants.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned award…passed…by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, as modified vide the impugned order, stands further modified accordingly. Interest is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Seema Rani & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 192)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Divyadeep Walia and Rajiv Kataria
Respondents: Advocates Vandita Nain, Ayushi Rajput and Devansh Pundir; AOR Anand Mishra
