Deep Shikha vs National Insurance Company Ltd

2025 INSC 675 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S)._______________ OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 22265-22266 OF 2018]

DEEP SHIKHA & ANR …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By way of the present appeals, the Appellants challenge the

common judgement and order of the Rajasthan High Court

at Jaipur passed on 14.05.2018 whereby High Court

reduced the compensation payable to Appellant No. 1 and

dismissed the claim in so far as it relates Appellant No. 2 in

a case arising out of a claim petition filed under the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. Signature Not Verified Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.13

26.01.2008 at around 1:15 pm, the deceased, namely, Smt. 17:54:37 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 9

Paras Sharma was on her two-wheeler and when she

reached a road crossing where a Roadways bus (“offending

vehicle”) stopped to her left and the negligently took a

sudden right turn due to which the deceased came under

the rear right-side tyre of the offending vehicle and

succumbed to her injuries.

4. A claim petition was filed by the Appellants, who are the

married daughter of the deceased (“Appellant No. 1”) and

mother of the deceased (“Appellant No. 2”), respectively,

seeking compensation of Rs. 54,30,740/-.

5. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2011, however, only

allowed the claim petition to the extent of Rs. 15,97,000/-

with 6% interest from the date of filing the claim petition and

in default of payment within 30 days and had observed that

9% interest shall be payable to the Appellants, holding the

driver of the offending vehicle (“Respondent No. 2”), the

owner of the offending vehicle (“Respondent No. 3”) and

the insurer of the offending vehicle (“Respondent No. 1”),

jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal assessed the age of

the deceased to be between 50 and 55 years and determined

her monthly income to be Rs. 24,406/-. It held that the

Page 2 of 9 Appellants were the legal heirs of the deceased and were to

some extent dependent on her, presuming 50% dependency.

Accordingly, applying a multiplier of 11, the Tribunal

computed the loss of income at Rs. 15,84,000/-. In addition,

it awarded Rs. 5,000/- to Appellant No. 1 under the head of

loss of love and affection, and Rs. 5,000/- to Appellant No. 2

for loss of care and services of the deceased. A further sum

of Rs. 3,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses.

6. The Claimants-Appellants and Respondent No.1 - Insurance

Company preferred separate appeals before the High Court.

The Claimants-Appellants were aggrieved by the amount of

compensation awarded, seeking enhancement of the same.

On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the

award to Appellant No.1 i.e. the daughter of the deceased,

on the ground that she was entitled to lesser compensation

in light of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Insofar as Appellant No.2 i.e. the mother of the deceased is

concerned, Respondent No. 1 argued that she is not entitled

to any compensation whatsoever because she cannot be

considered a legal heir of the deceased.

Page 3 of 9

7. The High Court vide common impugned judgement

dismissed the appeal filed by the Claimant-Appellants and

partly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent No.1.

Ultimately, the High Court modified the award and reduced

the compensation awarded to Appellant No.1 to

Rs.50,000/- and set aside the award qua Appellant No. 2 as

they could not be considered as dependents of the deceased

for the purpose of calculating compensation and in light of

this Hon’ble Court’s judgement in Manjuri Bera & Anr. vs.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, (2007) 10 SCC 634

held that only Appellant No.1 was entitled to receive

compensation as admissible under Section 140 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

8. Now the Appellants are before us challenging the impugned

order and judgement of the High Court on the grounds that

the High Court has misinterpreted this Court’s judgement

in Manjuri Bera.

9. We have heard all the parties and perused the material on

record.

10. It is not disputed that the death of the deceased was caused

due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2

Page 4 of 9 who was driving the offending vehicle owned by Respondent

No. 3 which was insured by Respondent No. 1.

11. The only question before us is whether the Appellants are

entitled to compensation as awarded by the Tribunal on

account of being dependent on the deceased.

12. The Appellants claim that they were entirely dependent on

the deceased. The deceased was married but her husband

had left her soon after the birth of Appellant No. 1 (her

daughter), after which Appellant No. 2 (her mother) was

living with the deceased daughter.

13. 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. It is more than likely that her dependence

on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased.

Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus

on the financial relationship between the deceased and the

Claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal

representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be

eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is

proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent

Page 5 of 9 on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the record that

Appellant No. 1 has failed to prove that she was being

financially supported by her mother post marriage and

hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the

deceased.

14. Therefore, it is our opinion the High Court correctly relied

on Manjuri Bera while holding that Appellant No.1, as the

legal representative of the deceased, will only be entitled to

compensation envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle

Act, 1988 as liability under the same does not cease to exist

in the absence of dependency.

15. However, the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s

award as it relates to Appellant No. 2, the mother of the

deceased. Appellant No. 2 was aged about 70 years of age at

the time of the accident resulting in the death of her

daughter, the deceased, and was solely dependent on the

deceased as she lived with her and had no independent

income, there is no evidence on record to rebut the same.

16. 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 deceased, being the only

Page 6 of 9 provider, would be assumed to be fulfilling this obligation,

further reinforcing Appellant No. 2’s status as a dependent.

Therefore, the untimely demise of the deceased may create

difficulties for Appellant No. 2 going forward, resulting in

hardship. Even if it is assumed that Appellant No. 2 was not

dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident, the

possibility of future dependency cannot be disregarded.

17. Accordingly, the case of Appellant No. 2 is distinguishable

from that of Appellant No. 1, who is the married daughter of

the deceased. The judgement of this Hon’ble Court in

Manjuri Bera dealt specifically with the grant of

compensation to a legal representative in cases where there

was no dependency on the deceased. That decision is not

applicable to the present case, insofar as Appellant No. 2 is

concerned, for the reasons set out above.

18. The Tribunal vide its order had awarded Rs. 15,97,000/- as

compensation to the Appellants. However, in our considered

opinion, the Tribunal did not consider all the factors laid

down by this Court in National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla

Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Page 7 of 9 and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, such as loss of future income

and estate, quantum to be awarded for funeral expenses,

loss of consortium. We have done our own calculation for

awarding compensation to Appellant No. 2, which is as

follows:

Calculation of Compensation Income of the deceased Rs. 24,406 [monthly] Future Prospect 15% Deduction of personal & living 50% expenses Total Monthly Income 24,406 + 3660 – 50% = Rs.

14,033 Multiplier [age 51-55] 11 Loss of Future Income 14,033 x 11 x 12 = Rs.18,52,356 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000 Loss of Consortium [filial Rs.40,000 consortium] Total Compensation 18,52,356 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 = Rs.19,22,356

19. Thus, taking into consideration all relevant factors such as

the total income of the deceased, loss of estate, loss of filial

consortium etc, Appellant No. 2 is entitled to compensation

of Rs.19,22,356/-.

20. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order insofar as it

pertains to the compensation awarded to Appellant No. 1,

Page 8 of 9 finding no reason to interfere with the relief granted in her

favour. However, we set aside the impugned order with

respect to the dismissal of the claim of Appellant No. 2,

which, in our considered view, warrants interference. We

have assigned reasons for enhancing the compensation to

Rs.19,22,356/-. Accordingly, we direct that a sum of

Rs.19,22,356/- be awarded to Appellant No. 2 as

compensation.

21. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

22. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

23. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.

………………….……………, J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

24.

….....………………………….J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI, MAY 13, 2025.

Page 9 of 9