Supreme Court Restores Compensation for Elderly Mother, Upholds Limited Relief to Married Daughter in Motor Accident Claim

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard appeals against a common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, which had reduced compensation payable to the deceased’s married daughter and had dismissed the claim of the deceased’s mother in a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeals arose from a claim petition following the death of the deceased in a collision with a State Roadways bus.

The Court allowed leave, noted that liability of the driver, owner and insurer was not in dispute, and confined the lone issue to whether the claimants were dependents of the deceased. The Court upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the married daughter could not claim loss of dependency without proof of financial reliance, observing reliance on Manjuri Bera. The Court, however, found that the High Court erred in rejecting the mother’s claim. It held that the mother, aged about 70 and living with the deceased with no independent income, was a dependent and that future dependency could not be disregarded. The Court recalculated compensation for the mother and directed payment of Rs.19,22,356/-. The Court affirmed the limited relief to the daughter as allowed by the High Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 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.”

Background

On 26 January 2008 the deceased, Smt. Paras Sharma, was riding a two-wheeler when a Roadways bus allegedly took a sudden right turn and the deceased came under its rear right-side tyre and died. The claimants—her married daughter (Appellant No.1) and her mother (Appellant No.2)—claimed Rs.54,30,740/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.15,97,000/- (applying a multiplier of 11 on an assessed monthly income of Rs.24,406/- and presuming 50% dependency), and small amounts for funeral expenses and loss of love/ care. Both sides appealed: the claimants sought enhancement, while the insurer challenged the award to the daughter relying on Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and disputed the mother’s entitlement. The High Court partly allowed the insurer’s appeal, reduced the award to the daughter to Rs.50,000/-, and set aside the award in favour of the mother, holding that only the daughter, as legal representative, could receive relief under Section 140. As the Court noted, “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.” The Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly applied Manjuri Bera to the married daughter but was wrong to dismiss the mother’s claim; it further held that the Tribunal had not applied all relevant factors set out in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma when assessing quantum. The Court undertook its own calculation (allowing 15% future prospects, 50% deduction for personal expenses, multiplier 11 for age 51–55) and awarded Rs.19,22,356/- to Appellant No.2. The appeal was disposed accordingly; the order as to the daughter stood and the dismissal as to the mother was set aside and enhanced.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 675 Case Title: DEEP SHIKHA & ANR v NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in report For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in report