Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1177
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
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The original claimant, the injured in a motor accident, had
filed the above appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation
1
as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal 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
deceased claimant/injured.
Signature Not Verified
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
2
Mukund and Ors. , followed by a Single Judge of the High Court
3
of Allahabad in Saroj Sharma v. State of U.P. .
4.
The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a
decision of this Court in Meena (Dead) Rep. by LRs. v.
4
Prayagraj and Others. 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 @
5
Jasmail Singh Kahlon .
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
2
Bhagwati Bai which we need not dilate upon in the facts of this
case where the inserted provision is squarely applicable.
4
8. The finding in Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (supra)
3
and Meena (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
6
Insurance Company Limited , 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
7
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others . 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
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
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The original claimant, the injured in a motor accident, had
filed the above appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation
1
as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal 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
deceased claimant/injured.
Signature Not Verified
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
2
Mukund and Ors. , followed by a Single Judge of the High Court
3
of Allahabad in Saroj Sharma v. State of U.P. .
4.
The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a
decision of this Court in Meena (Dead) Rep. by LRs. v.
4
Prayagraj and Others. 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 @
5
Jasmail Singh Kahlon .
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
2
Bhagwati Bai which we need not dilate upon in the facts of this
case where the inserted provision is squarely applicable.
4
8. The finding in Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (supra)
3
and Meena (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
6
Insurance Company Limited , 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
7
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others . 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