Legal Representatives May Pursue Enhancement of Compensation After Claimant's Death, Supreme Court Allows Increased Award

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident claim after the original claimant died during the pendency of the appeal; the legal heirs were substituted and sought enhancement of the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and affirmed with modification by the High Court.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and enhanced the compensation, holding that legal representatives could pursue claims for loss to the estate of an injured person even if the injured died subsequently, and that additional compensation was warranted for future treatment and losses sustained during prolonged medical care. The Court noted reliance on Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (2022) 13 SCC 494 and accepted that "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." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The Court specifically increased awards under several heads and directed prompt payment to the substituted appellants.

Background

The accident occurred on June 4, 2005, when the injured claimant was travelling in a bus. The claimant sustained injuries assessed as 100% disability by the Tribunal-appointed doctor. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepted a monthly income of Rs.3,000 for the claimant (then aged 50) and applied a multiplier of 13, awarding loss of income of Rs.4,60,000, medical expenses of Rs.1,68,970, attendant charges of Rs.1,20,000 (computed at Rs.2,000 per month for five years), and Rs.50,000 for pain and suffering, totaling Rs.8,56,970. The High Court enhanced the award marginally, adding Rs.50,000 for pain and suffering and Rs.1 lakh each for loss of amenities and future medical treatment. The claimant died on January 25, 2024, while the appeal was pending; her husband and two daughters were substituted as legal heirs.

The substituted appellants sought further enhancement. Their counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kahlon to contend that, although the injured had died, the legal representatives could pursue claims that would have accrued to the injured’s estate. The insurer did not object to the principle. The Supreme Court accepted this position and noted that the claimant had survived almost 19 years in a vegetative state with continued medical treatment, entitling her estate to additional compensation for future treatment and loss of amenities. The Court increased several heads of compensation, computing loss of income at Rs.5,14,800 (Rs.3,000 x 110% x 12 x 13), raised pain and suffering and loss of amenities to Rs.1 lakh each, awarded Rs.2 lakh for future treatment, and maintained medical bills and attendant charges. The final total awarded was Rs.12,53,770. The Court directed that the remaining amount, after adjusting amounts already paid, shall be paid equally to the legal heirs within two months; the legal heirs were to provide separate account details for online deposit, with interest as directed by the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed with these modifications and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 820 (Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.12187 of 2019) Case Title: MEENA (DEAD) REPRESENTED THR. LRs. v. PRAYAGRAJ & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment