Supreme Court Grants Enhanced Compensation To Heirs Of Injured Claimant Who Died Due To Motor Accident During Pendency Of Appeal
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed for the enhancement of compensation in a motor accident case where a married woman died.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
In a case of a motor accident where the injured claimant died during the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court has granted enhanced compensation to the legal heirs. The Court held that the heirs are entitled to succeed to the enhancement which, if granted before the injured claimant’s death, would have accrued to her estate or rather compensated the loss of her estate.
The injured was the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, who died during the pendency of the appeal. The husband and the two daughters, who are the legal heirs of the original claimant, were substituted as the appellants. The appeal was filed for enhanced compensation.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “We would consider the enhancement sought by the original applicant, which if granted before her death would have accrued to her estate or rather compensated the loss of her estate; caused by reason of the accident, which the legal heirs are entitled to succeed to.”
AOR Praveen Swarup represented the Appellants while Advocate Sudhir Bisla represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The incident occurred in 2005 when the injured person was travelling in a bus. There was a 100% disability assessed by the doctor. Both the Tribunal and the High Court accepted the percentage of disability. The original appellant (deceased), at the time of the accident, was 50 years old and her monthly income was taken as Rs 3,000. A multiplier of 13 was applied, and the total loss of income was assessed as Rs 4,60,000 by the Tribunal. The total compensation awarded was Rs 8,56,970. The High Court marginally enhanced the amount by awarding Rs 50,000 for pain and suffering and Rs 1 lakh each towards loss of amenities as well as for future medical treatment. The appeal thus came to be filed before the Apex Court.
Arguments
The claimants relied upon the judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (2022) to contend that despite the death of the injured, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim since the property under the Act would have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition and would include the estate left behind by the deceased.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that it was held in Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Supra) that if the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, there is no reason to prohibit the legal representatives from pursuing claims for loss of a property, akin to the estate of the injured, if the injured dies subsequently. “We see, absolutely no reason to differ from the declaration of law and the insurer also raises no objection on the same”, it said.
It was noticed that the Tribunal and the High Court had adopted a monthly income of Rs 3,000 for the deceased, a married woman who did not have regular employment. It was asserted before the Tribunal that she was carrying on stitching and embroidery work, which the Tribunal refused to accept, finding no evidence led.
“We are also of the opinion that considering the fact that the appellant (deceased) had survived almost 19 years in a vegetative state and there are medical bills produced for treatment undergone subsequently, all of which cannot be said to be a direct consequence of the accident, there is scope for further enhancement. In any event, an additional amount of Rs.1 lakh for future treatment would suffice”, it held.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench granted an enhanced compensation of Rs 12,53,770.
Cause Title: Meena (Dead) Represented Thr. Lrs. v.Prayagraj & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 820)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Praveen Swarup
Respondent: Advocates Sudhir Bisla, Sumitra, AOR Satyendra Kumar