DEEP SHIKHA & ANR.versusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

                  [2025] 6 S.C.R. 365 : 2025 INSC 675

                         Deep Shikha & Anr.
                                 v.
              National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 6641-6642 of 2025)
                                  13 May 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       The appellants challenge the common judgement and order of
       the High Court 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.

                                   Headnotes†
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Victim-deceased died in a
       road accident – A claim petition was filed by the appellant
       no.1-married daughter of deceased and appellant no.2-mother
       of deceased – Tribunal allowed the claim petition to an extent
       of Rs.15,97,000/- – Claimants-Appellants and respondent
       no.1-Insurance Company preferred separate appeals before the
       High Court – 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 – Correctness:
       Held: 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 –
       Appellant no.1 is married – A married daughter may be considered
       a legal representative, but she will not be eligible for loss of
       dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter
       that she was financially dependent 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 – Therefore, the High Court correctly relied on Manjuri


* Author
366                                                               [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Bera while holding that appellant no.1, as the legal representative
       of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged
       in s.140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – However, the High
       Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s award as it relates to
       appellant no.2, the mother of the deceased – 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 provider, would be assumed to be
       fulfilling this obligation, further reinforcing appellant no.2’s status
       as a dependent – The Tribunal did not consider all the factors
       relating to appellant no.2 – 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/- – Therefore, the impugned order
       insofar as it pertains to the compensation awarded to appellant
       no.1, is upheld – However, the impugned order with respect to the
       dismissal of the claim of appellant no. 2, warrants interference –
       Accordingly, a sum of Rs.19,22,356/- is awarded to appellant no.2
       as compensation. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20]

                                 Case Law Cited
       Manjuri Bera & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr [2007]
       4 SCR 590 : (2007) 10 SCC 634; National Insurance Company
       Limited v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680;
       Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
       Anr. [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

                                List of Keywords
       Motor Vehicle Accident claim; Compensation; Reduction of
       compensation; Loss of dependency compensation; Financially
       dependent; Daughter post marriage; Obligation of child; Parent
       at old age; Loss of estate; Loss of filial consortium.

                               Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 6641-6642
       of 2025
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                       367

     Deep Shikha & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.


     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2018 of the High Court
     of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCMA No. 3576 and
     SBCMA No. 6251 of 2011

                         Appearances for Parties
     Adv. for the Appellants:
     Abhishek Gupta.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Samir Malik.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     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 26.01.2008 at
     around 1:15 pm, the deceased, namely, Smt. 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
368                                                        [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 computed the loss of income at Rs. 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.
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.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                       369

     Deep Shikha & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.


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 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 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.
370                                                       [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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 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 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:

                         Calculation of Compensation
       Income of the deceased
                                    Rs. 24,406
       [monthly]
       Future Prospect              15%
       Deduction of personal &
                                    50%
       living expenses
       Total Monthly Income         24,406 + 3660 – 50% = Rs. 14,033
       Multiplier [age 51-55]       11
       Loss of Future Income        14,033 x 11 x 12 = Rs.18,52,356
       Funeral Expenses             Rs.15,000
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                        371

     Deep Shikha & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.



         Loss of Estate                 Rs.15,000
         Loss of Consortium
                                        Rs.40,000
         [filial consortium]
                                        18,52,356 + 15,000 + 15,000 +
         Total Compensation
                                        40,000 = Rs.19,22,356

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, 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.

     Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan