Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on February 11, 2025, said that major sons of a person who died in a road accident can apply for compensation, even if they are married and financially independent. Court said that since they are legal heirs, their claim must be considered, regardless of whether they were dependent on the deceased.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra awarded a compensation of Rs 37,80,681 to appellants Seema Rani and others, after being unable to agree with the view taken on the dependents of the deceased.

On May 13, 2015, the deceased, namely, Dev Raj, aged 50 years, was travelling on his scooter from his house to village Bhodipura. Near the house of one Mohinder Singh Nambardar, the offending bus collided with the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. Dev Raj died on the spot. The vehicle was being driven by respondent no 3, Narinder Singh, who fled from the spot.

A claim petition was filed by the appellants (wife, daughter, and two sons of the deceased) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 50,00,000 submitting that the deceased was employed in the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, earning more than Rs 50,000 per month.

The tribunal, by its order, awarded the appellants an amount of Rs 24,36,155 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, taking the income of the deceased as Rs 23,345 per month. The tribunal further held that all the four appellants were dependants of the deceased.

All the claimant-appellants and respondent no. 1 - Insurance Company preferred separate appeals before the high court. The claimants were aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, stating that the tribunal had not granted any amount under the head ‘future prospects’. The Insurance Company was aggrieved by the quantum, stating that claimants Nos 2 to 4 were major children of the deceased and, therefore, would not be dependents for the purpose of compensation. Consequently, a 50% deduction should have been made instead of 1/4th, it argued.

The high court, by the impugned order, partly allowed both appeals.

The contention of the claimants for awarding future prospects at the rate of 30% came to be accepted by the high court. On the other hand, it accepted the contention of the Insurance Company that the major sons and the married daughter of the deceased were not dependent on the deceased for sustenance, and therefore, a deduction of 50% was to be made. The high court awarded the appellants an amount of Rs 24,44,183.

Dissatisfied, the claimant-appellants approached the apex court.

It noted the significant point of challenge was that the high court erred in excluding appellants as dependants of the deceased.

After hearing the counsel for the appellants, the bench said, "We are unable to agree with the view taken by the tribunal on the dependents of the deceased."

The bench pointed out the top court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Birender & Ors (2020) expounded that major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the tribunal must consider the application, irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not. The court went on to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were earning merely Rs 1,50,000 per annum, they were largely dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were staying with her.

Adverting to the facts at hand, on a perusal of the statement of Shashi Kumar, the son of the deceased (appellant no. 2 ), the bench noted he was working at a petrol pump, while the other son was involved in temporary employment opportunities only. Both of them were residing with the deceased.

"In such circumstances, it cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased. Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender, there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation. Therefore, in view of this, the high court erred in excluding these dependants," the bench said.

The court accordingly allowed the civil appeal and modified the orders passed by the high court and the MACT.

Case Title: Seema Rani & Ors Vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd & Ors