The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that even married sons and daughters of a deceased victim are entitled to seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, irrespective of whether they were financially dependent on the deceased. The ruling came in Civil Appeal No. 7199 of 2025 (Jitender Kumar & Anr. vs Sanjay Prasad & Ors.), arising out of a motor accident claim involving the death of a 64-year-old self-employed man.
Background of the Case
On October 12, 2010, Niranjan Das, aged 64, died in a road accident while traveling with a friend in a car from Jind towards Narwana. A trailer, coming from the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner, collided with their vehicle near Sugar Mills, Narwana Road. An FIR (No. 331/2010) was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the trailer.
His legal heirs — two married sons and an unmarried daughter — filed a claim petition (No. 241 of 2013) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Karnal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹5 crore as compensation, claiming that the deceased was earning ₹3.5 lakh per month through his flour mill business and consultancy services.
The MACT awarded ₹1,60,000 along with 9% annual interest, finding no financial dependency on the deceased. It noted that the sons were already partners in the firm and drawing independent income. The award included ₹50,000 as statutory compensation under Section 140 (no-fault liability), ₹10,000 for transportation and last rites, and ₹1,00,000 for love and affection. The driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable.
High Court Proceedings
Dissatisfied, the claimants appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in FAO No. 4114 of 2016. The High Court, by order dated May 10, 2023, enhanced the compensation to ₹21,70,000 with 7.5% interest per annum, determining the deceased’s monthly income at ₹50,000 based on income tax returns. It declined to consider the income from the flour mill, since it was still being operated by the sons, and confirmed the finding that the children were not financially dependent on the deceased. A 50% deduction was made towards personal and living expenses, and a multiplier of 7 was applied as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the High Court erred in computing the deceased’s income by ignoring the full ITR records and the consultancy earnings from ASEL Agro Pvt. Ltd.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the appeal and held that the deceased’s annual income as per the ITR for AY 2011–12 was ₹10,36,331, translating to ₹86,360 per month. The Court found the High Court’s determination of ₹50,000 per month as based on general presumptions, despite clear documentary evidence.
Rejecting the claim for future prospects, the Court applied the precedent in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which held that no addition towards future prospects is warranted for deceased persons above 60 years.
Significantly, the Court referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, affirming the legal position that:
“It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased…”
This position was reaffirmed in Seema Rani and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
While the Court upheld the deduction of 50% towards personal expenses due to lack of financial dependency, it accepted the claimants’ entitlement to compensation as legal heirs.
The Court also revised the amounts under conventional heads such as loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses by 10%, citing the direction in Pranay Sethi to revise such amounts every three years.
Final Compensation Awarded
The Supreme Court awarded a total compensation of ₹38,08,662 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim. The components included:
- Loss of Income: ₹36,27,162
- Loss of Estate: ₹18,150
- Funeral Expenses: ₹18,150
- Loss of Consortium: ₹1,45,200
The Court directed that the compensation be directly remitted to the bank accounts of the two sons (Appellants No. 1 and 2) and the unmarried daughter (Respondent No. 4). The insurance company was instructed to complete the transfer within four weeks upon receipt of account details.
