Introduction
Date of the Judgment: February 11, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 192
Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Can major sons and married daughters be considered dependents for compensation in motor accident claims? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal concerning a motor accident claim. The court clarified the criteria for determining dependency, particularly focusing on whether major sons and married daughters can be considered dependents for the purpose of receiving compensation. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Case Background
On May 13, 2015, Dev Raj, aged 50, was fatally injured when his scooter was hit by a bus. The accident occurred near the house of Mohinder Singh Nambardar in Bhodipura. The offending bus, bearing registration No. PB 04M-9953, was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 3, Narinder Singh, who fled the scene after the accident. Dev Raj died on the spot.
The Appellants, comprising the wife, daughter, and two sons of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000. They asserted that the deceased was employed with the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and earned over Rs. 50,000 per month.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 13, 2015 | Dev Raj dies in a motor vehicle accident. |
| October 28, 2015 | MACT Case No. 44 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda. |
| November 9, 2016 | The Tribunal awards Rs. 24,36,155 to the Appellants. |
| 2017 | FAO No. 995/2017 filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. |
| April 27, 2023 | The High Court partly allows the appeals, awarding Rs. 24,44,183 to the Appellants. |
| 2025 | Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 444 of 2025) filed in the Supreme Court. |
| February 11, 2025 | The Supreme Court allows the appeal, modifying the compensation amount. |
Course of Proceedings
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bathinda, awarded the Appellants Rs. 24,36,155 with a 7% per annum interest, determining the deceased’s income to be Rs. 23,345 per month and recognizing all four Appellants as dependents.
Both the Claimant-Appellants and the Respondent No. 1, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appealed to the High Court. The Appellants sought an increase in compensation, arguing for the inclusion of ‘future prospects,’ while the Insurance Company contested the dependency status of the major sons and married daughter, advocating for a 50% deduction instead of 1/4th.
The High Court partly allowed both appeals, accepting the claim for future prospects at 30% but agreeing with the Insurance Company that the major sons and married daughter were not dependents. Consequently, the High Court awarded Rs. 24,44,183 to the Appellants.
Arguments
The primary contention of the Claimant-Appellants before the Supreme Court was that the High Court erred in excluding the major sons and married daughter as dependents of the deceased.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court erred in excluding the Appellants (major sons and married daughter) as dependents of the deceased.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court erred in excluding the Appellants (major sons and married daughter) as dependents of the deceased. | The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s view, referring to the precedent set in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors. [(2020) 11 SCC 356]. The Court noted that even major, married, and earning sons can be considered dependents, especially if their income is not substantial. The Court found that the sons of the deceased were not self-sufficient and that there was no reason to exclude the married daughter from compensation. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following case:
- National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors. [(2020) 11 SCC 356]: This case was cited to support the view that major, married, and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, irrespective of whether they are fully dependent on the deceased or not. The Court in Birender held that if the sons’ earnings are not substantial, they can still be considered dependents.
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| The High Court erred in excluding the major sons and married daughter as dependents of the deceased. | The Court agreed with the Appellants, stating that the High Court had erred in excluding the major sons and married daughter as dependents. The Court emphasized that the sons were not self-sufficient and that there was no reason to exclude the married daughter from compensation, based on the precedent set in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors. [(2020) 11 SCC 356]. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the precedent set in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors. [(2020) 11 SCC 356], which clarified that major, married, and earning sons could still be considered dependents if their income was not substantial. The Court also considered the factual circumstances of the case, noting that the sons of the deceased were not self-sufficient and were residing with the deceased. This combination of legal precedent and factual analysis weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to allow the appeal and modify the compensation amount.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Legal Precedent (Birender Case) | 60% |
| Factual Dependency of Sons | 40% |
| Factor | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Major, married, and earning sons can be considered dependents for compensation in motor accident claims, especially if their income is not substantial.
- ✓ There is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation if she was dependent on the deceased.
- ✓ Tribunals must consider the specific circumstances of each case to determine dependency, rather than applying a blanket exclusion based on marital status or age.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that dependency for compensation in motor accident claims should be determined based on the factual circumstances of each case, and major sons and married daughters should not be automatically excluded as dependents.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Seema Rani & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. clarifies that dependency for compensation in motor accident claims should be determined based on the factual circumstances of each case. The Court held that major sons and married daughters should not be automatically excluded as dependents, reinforcing the principle that tribunals must consider individual circumstances when assessing dependency.