Dependent mother of deceased also entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicle Act

Dependent mother of the deceased also entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicle Act – Supreme Court

In a recent judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that dependent mother of the deceased is entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicle Act as 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.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4562 (2025) (05) abcaus.in SC

In the instant case, the Appellants (Mother and daughter of the deceased) challenged the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court whereby High Court reduced the compensation payable to daughter and dismissed the claim of Mother in a case arising out of a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The deceased was on her two-wheeler when a Roadways bus negligently and suddenly took a turn hitting the deceased who succumbed to her injuries. The Mother and the married daughter of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

The Tribunal only partly allowed the claim. The Tribunal held that the appellants were the legal heirs of the deceased and were to some extent dependent on her, presuming 50% dependency.

The Insurance Company preferred appeals before the High Court. It was the case of the Insurance company that daughter of the deceased, was entitled to lesser compensation in light of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Insofar as the mother of the deceased was concerned, it was argued that she was not entitled to any compensation whatsoever because she cannot be considered a legal heir of the deceased. 

The High Court vide impugned judgement modified the award and reduced the compensation awarded to the daughter and set aside the award qua mother holding that they could not be considered as dependents of the deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Appellants had claimed that they were entirely dependent on the deceased. The deceased was married but her husband had left her soon after the birth of her daughter, after which her mother was living with the deceased daughter.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that 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.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that 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 law laid down by the Court, 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.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the daughter who was married had 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 deceased mother. Therefore, the High Court correctly followed the judgment of the Court while holding that daughter, 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.

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s award as it related to the mother of the deceased. The mother 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 was no evidence on record to rebut the same.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that 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 mother’s status as a dependent. Therefore, the untimely demise of the deceased may create difficulties for mother going forward, resulting in hardship. Even if it is assumed that mother was not dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident, the possibility of future dependency cannot be disregarded.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in view of the above, the case of Mother was distinguishable from that of the married daughter of the deceased. The judgement of the Court relied upon by the High Court specifically dealt with the grant of compensation to a legal representative in cases where there was no dependency on the deceased. That decision was not applicable to the present case, insofar as daughter was concerned.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal did not consider all the factors laid down by the Court such as loss of future income and estate, quantum to be awarded for funeral expenses, loss of consortium.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, taking into consideration all relevant factors such as the total income of the deceased, loss of estate, loss of filial consortium etc, enhanced the compensation of the mother.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the impugned order of the High Court insofar as it pertained to the compensation awarded to the daughter. However, with respect to the dismissal of the claim of the Mother , the impugned order was set aside.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter thrown out at threshold
• Prior period income cannot be considered as income of the current year
• SC condoned delay of 972 days in filing appeal due to restructuring in Department
• No addition on mere valuation report when stamp duty valuation is available
• ITAT deleted penalty for making a wrong claim of deduction u/s 54F/54B