“Cannot Resile from Her Own Conduct”: Supreme Court Dismisses Woman’s Plea Against Compensation Disbursal in Motor Accident Case

The Supreme Court of India on September 5, 2025 dismissed a woman’s appeal against the Gauhati High Court order upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s decision on the disbursal of compensation awarded for the death of her son in a 2009 road accident.

A bench of Justices N V Anjaria and Atul S Chandurkar rejected the appeal filed by Urmila Chand, who had challenged the Gauhati High Court’s order dated January 22, 2021. The Court held that the appellant had voluntarily accepted the compensation cheque, signed the order sheet, and encashed the amount without any objection.

The case originated from a claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) following the death of the appellant’s son in a road accident. The Tribunal, by order dated April 21, 2015, awarded a total compensation of ₹11,82,000. Out of this, a cheque for ₹1,00,000 was issued in favour of the appellant, while ₹6,26,000 was given to her daughter-in-law, Sonu Chand. Additionally, cheques for ₹3,00,000 each were directed to be deposited in fixed deposits for the deceased’s two minor children.

The Tribunal had acted on a joint application signed by both the appellant and her daughter-in-law, which sought permission to withdraw the awarded compensation. On this basis, the Tribunal directed disbursal of the amounts to the respective claimants.

The appellant later sought review of the Tribunal’s order, contending that she had been unfairly given only ₹1,00,000 when she was a Class I legal heir under succession law. She argued that the distribution was contrary to law and that injustice had been done to her. She also claimed that the Tribunal erred in its apportionment by allocating the larger share to her daughter-in-law.

The review petition, however, was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of delay as well as on the merits. The Gauhati High Court subsequently upheld the Tribunal’s order, finding no infirmity in the rejection of her plea.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel submitted that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to consider that the order under review was grossly unfair and unsustainable. It was argued that the Tribunal wrongly disbursed only ₹1,00,000 to the appellant and denied her lawful share as a mother of the deceased. He sought condonation of the six-month delay in filing the review petition and urged that the Tribunal’s order should have been revisited in light of succession principles.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued that the appellant had knowingly and voluntarily signed the joint application for withdrawal of compensation, accepted the cheque of ₹1,00,000, and encashed it without protest. It was submitted that filing of the review petition was an afterthought, and her conduct barred her from raising objections belatedly.

The Supreme Court agreed with the respondents. The bench observed that the appellant had acted with full awareness and could not now claim otherwise. “It was upon a joint application and with open eyes. Not only that appellant voluntarily received the said amount, but she also put her signature on the order sheet confirming the receipt of the amount,” the judgment recorded.

The Court further held that there was no fraud in the transaction as alleged by the appellant. It found that the appellant had “acted overtly and consciously” and could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate. “The appellant could not be permitted to resile from her own conduct. She cannot be accounted to approbate and reprobate. The question of occurrence of fraud against her does not arise in the facts of the case. The appellant now cannot reopen or dispute the factums of her own act by showing disagreement to the disbursement raising all after-thought contentions,” the bench observed.

The Court noted that the joint application filed before the Tribunal did not spell out the specific share of each party but only sought withdrawal of the awarded amount. On that basis, the Tribunal permitted disbursal. The appellant, having participated in that process, could not later challenge the outcome.

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no error in the orders passed by the Tribunal or the High Court. The decision effectively confirmed that the disbursal of compensation in favour of the daughter-in-law and minor children, along with the ₹1,00,000 paid to the appellant, would remain undisturbed.

Case Title: Urmila Chand v. Sonu Chand & Others

Bench: Justices N V Anjaria and Atul S Chandurkar

Judgment Date: September 5, 2025