Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-002159-002159 – 2024 |
| Diary Number | 26411/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms survival of claims under Section 167(5) MVA Act; diverges from Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhagwati Bai (FB) |
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the 2019 amendment inserting Section 167(5) clearly provides that rights to claim compensation for motor-accident injuries survive to legal representatives, irrespective of cause of death or nexus with the injury. Consequently, appeals may continue post-death. In assessing quantum, the claimant’s actual income at the time of accident must be determined on available evidence; where lifespan post-accident is less than the multiplier applied, the multiplier is reduced to actual years lived. Future prospects of 25 percent apply for total disability. Interest runs at 9 percent from the date of filing until payment. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts; future benches of the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhagwati Bai & Anr. v. Bablu and Mukund and Ors. (to the extent inconsistent with Section 167(5)) |
| Distinguishes | Bhagwati Bai (FB); Saroj Sharma (Allahabad HC) |
| Follows | Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon; Meena (Dead) Rep. by LRs. v. Prayagraj and Others |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The 2019 amendment (Act 32/2019) inserting Section 167(5) ensures personal-injury claims under Section 166 MVA Act survive to legal representatives, regardless of cause of death.
- Confirms that substitution of deceased claimants by LRs in appellate proceedings is permissible post-amendment.
- Where the actual lifespan post-accident is less than the prescribed multiplier, the multiplier must be reduced to the actual years lived.
- Affirms 25 percent addition for future prospects in cases of total disability.
- Interest at 9 percent runs from date of filing of claim petition until actual payment, without arbitrary cut-off.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Preliminary Objection
- Insurer challenged continuation post-death under Section 306 Indian Succession Act, citing MP High Court decisions.
- Supreme Court held Section 167(5) MVA Act (inserted effective 1 Apr 2022) overrides any abatement, ensuring survival of claim to LRs.
-
Precedential Support
- Relied on Oriental Insurance v. Kahlon and Meena v. Prayagraj for broad interpretation of “property” and survival of claims.
-
Quantum of Income
- Tribunal’s adoption of ₹8,000/month was reduced to ₹4,030 without basis.
- Applying Ramachandrappa benchmark (₹4,500 in 2004) with annual increment of ₹500, Court fixated monthly income at ₹9,000 as of 2013.
-
Multiplier Adjustment
- Pranay Sethi Constitution Bench mandates multiplier of 14 for a 45-year-old.
- As deceased lived only 11 years post-accident, multiplier reduced to 11 for estate compensation.
-
Future Prospects & Disability
- Total disability entitles 25 percent addition.
-
Interest
- 9 percent per annum from date of filing to actual payment; prior payments to be adjusted.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (Legal Representatives):
- Section 167(5) MVA Act preserves right to claim post-death.
- Claimant’s true monthly income was ₹8,000 plus agricultural income.
- Appeal remand wrongly reduced income to ₹4,030; amounts to abuse of process.
Respondent (Insurer):
- Continuation prohibited by Section 306 Indian Succession Act as per MP High Court.
- Monthly income should be lower; disputed multiplier; interest should be restricted.
Factual Background
The original claimant, injured in a motor-vehicle accident and rendered 100% disabled, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation based on a monthly income of ₹8,000, which the High Court on remand reduced to ₹4,030 without documentary proof. The claimant died during the pendency of the appeal; his legal representatives were substituted. The insurer objected to continuation of proceedings under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. The Supreme Court addressed survival of claims post-death under the 2019 amendment and recalculated compensation.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 166 MVA Act, 1988: Right to claim compensation for injury in motor accident.
- Section 167(5) MVA Act (inserted by Act 32/2019): Explicitly provides survival of compensation claims to legal representatives, irrespective of cause or nexus of death.
- Section 306 Indian Succession Act, 1925: Addressed abatement, but held subordinate to Section 167(5) of the MVA Act.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overriding Madhya Pradesh High Court Full Bench in Bhagwati Bai v. Bablu and Mukund (to the extent of abatement ruling)
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kahlon; Meena (Dead) Rep. by LRs. v. Prayagraj and Others