“If a person dies in an accident due to their own negligence, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation, however, married sons and daughters of the deceased are also entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,” rules Supreme Court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In two recent landmark rulings, the Supreme Court of India has clarified crucial aspects of accident insurance claims and compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The judgments address questions of liability when an accident is caused by the victim’s own negligence and the entitlement of married children to compensation following the death of a parent.
Verdict 1: No Compensation if Accident Caused by Deceased’s Own Negligence
The Supreme Court of India ruled that insurance companies are not liable to compensate the family of a person who dies in an accident caused by their own rash and negligent driving. If the accident results solely from the driver’s own fault, no compensation is payable.
Background
This verdict came in the case of NS Ravisha, a Karnataka resident who died in a self-caused car accident on June 18, 2014, while driving with his family.
Ravisha was driving from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town. In the car, his father, sister, and her children were also travelling.
The police charge sheet clearly mentioned that Ravish was driving fast and carelessly, leading to the accident. His family demanded Rs. 80 lakh compensation from United India Insurance Company.
However, both the Motor Accident Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court rejected the claim on the ground of the deceased’s contributory negligence.
Supreme Court Decision
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, reiterating that when an accident is solely caused by the deceased’s reckless driving and no external factor is involved, the insurance company bears no liability. Thus, the family is not entitled to compensation under such circumstances.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan ruled that
“If a person dies in a road accident due to their own fault, the insurance company is not obligated to pay compensation to the deceased’s family.”
While dismissing the case, the Supreme Court clearly said:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the high court. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”
Case Title: G. NAGARATHNA & ORS. vs G. MANJUNATHA & ANR.
READ ORDER HERE
Verdict 2: Married Children Also Entitled to Compensation
The Supreme Court has upheld that married sons and daughters can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, even if they were not financially dependent on the deceased. The decision came in Jitender Kumar & Anr. vs Sanjay Prasad & Ors.(Civil Appeal No. 7199 of 2025), related to the accidental death of a 64-year-old self-employed man.
Background
The deceased’s legal heirs, two married sons and an unmarried daughter, filed Claim Petition No. 241 of 2013 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Karnal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking Rs. 5 crore in compensation.
They claimed the deceased earned Rs. 3.5 lakh per month from his flour mill and consultancy business. However, the MACT awarded only Rs. 1.6 lakh with 9% annual interest, noting there was no financial dependency as the sons were already partners in the business with independent income.
The compensation included Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 (no-fault liability), Rs. 10,000 for transportation and last rites, and Rs. 1,00,000 for love and affection. The driver, owner, and insurer were held jointly and severally liable.
Supreme Court Analysis
In the Supreme Court appeal, the appellants contended that the High Court wrongly assessed the deceased’s income by overlooking full ITR records and consultancy earnings from ASEL Agro Pvt. Ltd.
The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi accepted the appeal, holding that the deceased’s annual income, based on his ITR for AY 2011–12, was Rs. 10,36,331 (Rs. 86,360 per month).
The Court criticized the High Court’s Rs. 50,000 monthly income estimate as speculative, despite clear evidence. Citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court ruled out any addition for future prospects, since the deceased was over 60.
The High Court has relied on the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, declaring the legal position that
“It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only.”
This position was reaffirmed in Seema Rani and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., where it was held that,
“The application for compensation, even by married sons and daughters, must be considered, irrespective of whether they are fully dependant or not.”
To ensure just and fair compensation, the Court increased the amounts awarded under conventional heads, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses by 10%, citing the principle from Pranay Sethi, which mandates periodic revision of these amounts every three years.
The Court directed that
“The compensation amount be directly transferred to the bank accounts of the claimant-appellants—Appellant No. 1 (Son), Appellant No. 2 (Son), and Respondent No. 4 (Daughter). Their counsel must promptly provide the account details to the insurance company’s counsel. The payment must be completed within four weeks.”
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar and others vs Sanjay Prasad and others
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Accident Insurance Claim
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
