Deep Shikha vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 675

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)

J U D G M E N T
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. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.05.13
17:54:37 IST
Reason:
26.01.2008 at around 1:15 pm, the deceased, namely, Smt.
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
Rs.
computed the loss of income at 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:

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