A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case Deep Shikha & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 13 May 2025, revolves around the determination of rightful compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants, being the married daughter and the aged mother of the deceased victim, had approached the Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of Smt. Paras Sharma in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Rajasthan Roadways bus. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 15,97,000/- jointly in their favour, holding them to be legal heirs and dependents. However, on appeal, the Rajasthan High Court drastically reduced the daughter’s compensation to Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and denied the mother any compensation on the ground of lack of dependency.

The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court’s reasoning regarding the married daughter’s lack of dependency, faulted the High Court for denying compensation to the deceased’s mother, who, being aged and without income, was clearly dependent on her daughter. The Court emphasized the reciprocal duty of children to maintain parents under Indian law and jurisprudence, thereby restoring and enhancing compensation to Rs. 19,22,356/- in favour of the mother. The ruling clarifies the jurisprudential position that a married daughter, unless financially dependent, cannot claim loss of dependency but parents of the deceased enjoy a legitimate right to compensation. Reliance was placed on Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pranay Sethi, and Sarla Verma to determine principles of dependency, computation of income, future prospects, and consortium.

This judgment reinforces the humanitarian and social obligations embedded in motor accident compensation law, balancing strict statutory interpretation with equitable considerations for dependents.

Keywords: Motor Accident Claim; Dependency; Married Daughter; Aged Parent; Compensation Computation; Loss of Estate; Filial Consortium; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for a beneficial statutory framework aimed at awarding just compensation to victims of road accidents and their dependents. Over the decades, Indian courts have interpreted the provisions liberally to ensure that social justice permeates the statutory scheme. The present case emerges against the backdrop of a road accident dated 26 January 2008, which claimed the life of Smt. Paras Sharma. The deceased was financially supporting her aged mother, while her married daughter claimed to also be a dependent. The Tribunal accepted both as dependents but the High Court, relying on Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., drastically reduced and even negated their claims.

The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing two crucial issues: first, whether a married daughter can be considered a dependent for claiming loss of dependency, and second, whether an aged mother of the deceased qualifies as a dependent for purposes of compensation under the Act. These questions are not merely technical but touch upon the evolving jurisprudence on familial obligations, dependency, and rightful beneficiaries under the social welfare legislation of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court’s interpretation carries significant implications, especially in cases involving aged parents or married children of accident victims.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 26 January 2008, the deceased, Smt. Paras Sharma, while riding her two-wheeler, met with a fatal accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Rajasthan Roadways bus. The vehicle suddenly swerved, crushing the deceased under its rear tyre. The deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot. A claim petition was filed by her married daughter, Deep Shikha (Appellant No. 1), and her aged mother, Smt. (Appellant No. 2), seeking compensation of Rs. 54,30,740/- under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal assessed her monthly income as Rs. 24,406/- and, applying a multiplier of 11 for her age (between 50 and 55), computed a loss of dependency at Rs. 15,84,000/-. Additionally, it awarded Rs. 5,000/- each under loss of love and affection and loss of services, and Rs. 3,000/- as funeral expenses, thereby granting a total of Rs. 15,97,000/- with 6% interest. The liability was fixed jointly and severally upon the driver, owner, and insurer.

The appellants sought enhancement of compensation while the insurer challenged the award, contending that a married daughter could not claim dependency and that the mother was not a legal heir under the Act. The High Court partially allowed the insurer’s appeal, reducing the daughter’s compensation to Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 (no-fault liability) and denying the mother’s claim altogether. Dissatisfied, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a married daughter can be considered a dependent on the deceased mother for purposes of loss of dependency under Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

ii. Whether an aged mother of the deceased, having no independent income, is entitled to compensation on account of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

iii. Whether the High Court erred in relying on Manjuri Bera to deny compensation to the appellants?

iv. What is the correct quantum of compensation payable in light of Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma guidelines?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal had rightly recognized both the married daughter and the aged mother as dependents, awarding compensation in their favour. It was argued that the High Court misinterpreted Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which only restricted compensation to legal representatives in absence of dependency but did not outright exclude parental claims. Further reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma v. DTC, contending that future prospects, consortium, and loss of estate must be factored into computation, which the High Court had ignored.

It was further argued that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, there exists a statutory duty upon children to maintain aged parents, thereby fortifying the mother’s claim as a dependent. Denial of such compensation would not only be inequitable but also contrary to the legislative intent of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a social welfare statute.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Insurance Company contended that the married daughter, being settled in her matrimonial home, could not be regarded as financially dependent upon her deceased mother. Reliance was placed on Manjuri Bera, where the Supreme Court had limited entitlement of non-dependent legal representatives to compensation under Section 140. With respect to the aged mother, it was argued that the Tribunal erred in presuming dependency without adequate evidence, and therefore the High Court had rightly set aside the award. It was also contended that the computation by the Tribunal was excessive and not in line with Pranay Sethi principles.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 140 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (no-fault liability).
ii. Section 166 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (application for compensation).
iii. Section 168 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (award of just compensation).
iv. Section 125 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (maintenance of parents).
v. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning regarding the married daughter, holding that a married daughter, unless proven to be financially dependent, cannot claim loss of dependency compensation. However, she remains entitled to statutory compensation under Section 140. The Court emphasized that logical presumption dictates that a married woman is financially sustained by her matrimonial household, unless contrary evidence is produced.

Conversely, the Court held that the High Court erred in denying compensation to the mother of the deceased. It reiterated that children are legally and morally obliged to maintain their aged parents, and therefore the deceased must be presumed to have been supporting her mother. The Tribunal’s failure to account for principles laid down in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma warranted correction.

Accordingly, the Court recalculated compensation: monthly income of Rs. 24,406 with 15% future prospects, 50% deduction towards personal expenses, and multiplier of 11. It awarded Rs. 18,52,356 towards loss of future income, Rs. 15,000 each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, and Rs. 40,000 towards loss of filial consortium, totaling Rs. 19,22,356/- payable to the mother.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi lies in the differentiation between married daughters and aged parents in the context of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While married daughters are legal representatives under Section 166, they are not entitled to loss of dependency compensation unless they establish financial dependence. In contrast, aged parents, being presumptively dependent upon their children, are entitled to such compensation, even if actual dependency at the time of death is disputed. The Court reaffirmed that the duty of children to maintain parents is analogous to the duty of parents to maintain minor children.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that even if a parent is not strictly dependent at the time of the accident, the possibility of future dependency cannot be ignored, especially given socio-economic realities. This broader interpretative stance indicates that courts must not adopt a narrow reading of dependency but must factor in humanitarian considerations and future contingencies.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Married daughters are legal representatives but not dependents unless proven otherwise.
ii. Parents of deceased victims are presumptively dependents, given the statutory and moral duty of maintenance.
iii. Compensation must be calculated strictly in accordance with Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma.
iv. Non-dependent legal representatives are only entitled to Section 140 compensation.
v. Courts must consider future dependency possibilities when adjudicating parental claims.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment carries substantial significance in motor accident jurisprudence. By upholding the limited entitlement of married daughters while simultaneously affirming the rights of aged parents, the Court balances strict statutory construction with humanitarian equity. It reiterates that the Motor Vehicles Act is a welfare legislation intended to alleviate hardships of accident victims’ families. The reaffirmation of children’s duty to maintain parents strengthens parental claims, even in absence of strict proof of dependency.

The judgment serves as a guiding precedent for tribunals and High Courts, ensuring that compensation is neither excessively reduced nor arbitrarily denied. Its reliance on Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma ensures consistency in computation while its obiter dicta highlight judicial sensitivity towards vulnerable dependents. In doing so, the Court harmonizes principles of tort law, statutory interpretation, and family law obligations.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

i. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 634.
ii. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
iii. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Important Statutes Referred

i. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125.
iii. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.