Dhannalal Alias Dhanraj (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs Nasir Khan

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024

Dhannalal Alias Dhanraj (Dead) Thr. LRs. …Appellants Versus Nasir Khan and Ors. …Respondents JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The original claimant, the injured in a motor accident, had

filed the above appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation

as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal1 and

enhanced by the High Court. The claimant who was rendered

100% disabled, by reason of the accident, unfortunately died

during the pendency of this appeal; on 24.04.2024. The legal

representatives have substituted themselves in place of the

Signature Not Verified deceased claimant/injured.

Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.09.26 18:33:29 IST Reason: 1 for short, ‘the Tribunal’

Page 1 of 9 Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024

2. Heard, Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr.Atul Nigam, learned counsel for the

respondent insurance company.

3. The learned counsel for the insurance company raised a

preliminary objection in continuing the appeal and considering

it, by virtue of the substitution of the deceased claimant by his

legal representatives. It is the contention of the insurer that since

the claim is of compensation for personal injury, the continuation

of the proceedings cannot be permitted by the legal

representatives, going by Section 306 of the Indian Succession

Act, 1925 and as interpreted by a Full Bench of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Bhagwati Bai and Anr. v. Bablu and

Mukund and Ors.2, followed by a Single Judge of the High Court

of Allahabad in Saroj Sharma v. State of U.P.3.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a

decision of this Court in Meena (Dead) Rep. by LRs. v.

Prayagraj and Others.4 which followed another decision of this

2 AIR 2007 MP 38 (FB) 3 2014 SCC OnLine ALL 7707 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1433

Page 2 of 9 Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024 Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @

Jasmail Singh Kahlon5.

5. We have to first deal with the preliminary objection raised

against the continuation of the proceedings after the victim died.

The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on an

interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

especially Section 166, juxtaposed with Section 306 of the Indian

Succession Act, 1925 held : “…that a claim for personal injury filed

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would abate on

the death of the claimant and would not survive to his legal

representatives except as regards the claim for pecuniary loss to

the estate of the claimant.” (sic paragraph 15).

6. The answer is simple and clear in so far as the insertion of

sub-section (5) to Section 167 by Act 32 of 2019 with effect from

01.04.2022, which reads as under:

“[(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of a person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of

5 (2022) 13 SCC 494

Page 3 of 9 Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024 death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.]”

7. The right to claim compensation for the injuries caused in

a motor vehicle accident hence survives on the legal

representatives of the injured even if the injured dies in the

course of the proceedings for reasons not relatable to or having

any nexus with the injuries sustained. Here the injured died in

2024, after the insertion to Section 166 by amendment. We also

have a difference of opinion with the declaration of law in

Bhagwati Bai2 which we need not dilate upon in the facts of this

case where the inserted provision is squarely applicable.

8. The finding in Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon4 (supra)

and Meena3 (supra) we extract from paragraph 5 of the latter

decision which reads as follows:-

“5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the claimants relied on Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon to impress upon us 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

Page 4 of 9 Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024 behind by the deceased. It was held that if the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, there is no reason to prohibit the legal representatives to pursue claims for loss of a property, akin to 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. 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.”

9. Coming to the quantum enhancement as claimed by the

injured, the contentions are twofold, one on the earlier occasion,

the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.18,52,000/- with 9%

interest, determining the monthly income of the injured at

Rs.8,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,000/-. The claimant had

contended that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month from the job

of a Mistry in the shop of a person who was examined as AD-02.

The additional income of the claimant was from the agricultural

lands which he owned. An appeal was filed in which there was a

remand made when the Tribunal reduced the monthly income to

Page 5 of 9 Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024 Rs.4,000/-; without any reasonable cause, as argued by the

learned counsel for the appellants.

10. There was no documentary evidence submitted to prove

the salary or the agricultural income. While the Tribunal at the

earlier stage had adopted Rs.8,000/- as monthly income, on

remand what was accepted as monthly income was Rs.4,030/. In

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Limited6, this Court held a Coolie to be

entitled to Rs.4500/- as monthly income in 2004. Definitely there

would be incremental increase of income in the succeeding

years which we determine at Rs.500/- per year which would

bring the total income so computed to Rs.9,000/- as on 2013.

Considering the fact that the injured was engaged as a skilled

worker for which oral evidence was adduced, we are of the

opinion that Rs.9,000/- can be safely accepted as his monthly

income at the time of the accident, which he was deprived of fully

because of the 100% disability. The disability has been certified

6 (2011) 13 SCC 236

Page 6 of 9 Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024 by a Medical Board of a Government Hospital and there is no

dispute raised on the same.

11. It is trite that what is awarded to an injured in a claim

petition is just compensation and as held by this Court it cannot

lead to a windfall for the injured claimant or his legal heirs. The

Tribunal and the High Court had adopted the multiplier of 14 for

the 45 year old claimant which is in accordance with the

judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in National

Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others7. The fact

remains that the injured lived only for 11 years. Probably; his life

span having been reduced by the injuries which rendered him

100% disabled, ultimately resulting in his demise. The multiplier

is applied on the assessment of the normal life span where an

injured or deceased in a motor accident would have worked and

earned to support himself and his family. When the

consideration in the present appeal, is with respect to the loss

occasioned to the estate of the injured; the injured having died,

the multiplier adopted of 14 cannot be applied which will have

7 (2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 7 of 9 Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024 to be reduced to 11, the actual life span. The victim not being

engaged in a regular employment still is entitled to 25% for

future prospects especially since his functional disability was

100%, totally disabled from carrying on any work or generate

any income.

12. The award of the Tribunal as modified and enhanced by the

High Court determined a total award of Rs.5,52,095/- as

computed under mental agony, pain and suffering, nourishment,

transportation and medical expenses, incurred and future, as

also expenses for a personal attendant which has to be sustained,

since the injured had lived for 11 years after the accident, in a

vegetative state. That has already become a part of the estate of

the injured-victim.

13. As for the loss of income, the following formula is

adopted: -

Rs.9,000 x 12 x 125% x 11 = Rs.14,85,000/-.

The total compensation would be, hence Rs.20,37,095/-.

14. One another contention raised is with respect to the

restriction of the interest paid i.e., from the date of application

Page 8 of 9 Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024 till 07.11.2016 as restricted by the High Court without any

rationale. The interest on the total award of Rs.20,30,095/- at the

rate of 9% would run from the date of the filing of the claim

petition till the payment is made. If any amounts are already

paid, the same shall be deducted and the balance shall be paid

within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

15. The appeal stands allowed.

16. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

………….……………………. J.

(N. V. ANJARIA)

New Delhi;

September 26, 2025.

Page 9 of 9 Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024