Supreme Court rules on dependency and legal representation in motor accident claims involving married daughters and aged parents
The Supreme Court of India has clarified that a married daughter of a deceased woman cannot claim compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, unless she proves actual financial dependence on the deceased. However, the Court restored compensation to the mother of the deceased, holding her to be a dependent based on facts.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran in Deep Shikha & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., arising from a motor accident claim following the death of one Paras Sharma.
Background
On January 26, 2008, Paras Sharma died in a road accident when a Roadways bus, after stopping to her left, suddenly took a right turn, resulting in the deceased being run over by the rear tyre. A claim petition was filed by her married daughter (Appellant No. 1, Deep Shikha) and her mother (Appellant No. 2), seeking compensation of ₹54,30,740.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide order dated May 11, 2011, awarded ₹15,97,000 to the appellants with interest, holding the driver, owner, and insurer of the bus jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal presumed 50% dependency and applied a multiplier of 11.
Both parties challenged the award before the Rajasthan High Court. The insurance company contended that the married daughter was not entitled to dependency compensation, and the mother was not a legal heir. The High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the daughter to ₹50,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and dismissed the claim of the mother entirely.
Arguments and Legal Issues
The appellants challenged the High Court’s order, arguing that both were dependent on the deceased and thus entitled to full compensation as originally granted by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2007) 10 SCC 634], where it was held that a legal representative may receive compensation under Section 140 even in the absence of dependency.
The principal issue before the Court was: whether the appellants could be considered dependents entitled to compensation beyond the statutory amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Observations of the Court
The Court held that:
“Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise.”
The Bench emphasized that under Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation for loss of dependency must be supported by evidence of actual financial dependence. It noted that Appellant No. 1 failed to prove such dependency and thus was only entitled to compensation under Section 140.
However, with respect to Appellant No. 2 — the 70-year-old mother of the deceased — the Court found that she was indeed dependent on her daughter and had no independent income. The Court held:
“The obligation of a child to maintain their parent in old age is as much of a duty as the obligation of a parent to maintain their child during minority.”
The Court further stated that even if dependency was not conclusively proven, “the possibility of future dependency cannot be disregarded.”
Recalculation of Compensation
Applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the Court recalculated the compensation for Appellant No. 2 as follows:
- Monthly Income: ₹24,406
- Future Prospects (15%): ₹3,660
- Net Monthly Income (after 50% deduction): ₹14,033
- Multiplier (Age 51–55): 11
- Loss of Future Income: ₹18,52,356
- Funeral Expenses: ₹15,000
- Loss of Estate: ₹15,000
- Loss of Consortium (Filial): ₹40,000
Total Compensation: ₹19,22,356
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order concerning Appellant No. 1, confirming that she was not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency. However, it set aside the High Court’s denial of compensation to Appellant No. 2 and directed payment of ₹19,22,356 to the mother of the deceased.
The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
