New Delhi, Feb 12 (UNI) The Supreme Court ruled that major sons of a person who died in a road accident are entitled to compensation, irrespective of their marital status or financial independence.
The court emphasized on Tuesday that as legal heirs, their claims must be considered, regardless of dependency on the deceased.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra granted compensation of Rs 37,80,681 to appellants Seema Rani and others, disagreeing with the lower courts’ view on the dependency of the deceased’s adult children.
On May 13, 2015, 50-year-old Dev Raj was fatally hit by a recklessly driven bus while riding his scooter to Bhodipura village. The driver, Narinder Singh, fled the scene. The deceased’s wife, daughter, and two sons filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking Rs 50,00,000 in compensation, asserting that Dev Raj was an employee of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, earning over Rs 50,000 per month.
The MACT awarded Rs 24,36,155 along with 7% annual interest, calculating the deceased’s monthly income as Rs 23,345 and recognizing all four claimants as dependents.
Both the claimants and the insurance company challenged the ruling in the High Court. The claimants argued for higher compensation due to the omission of ‘prospects,’ while the insurance company contended that the deceased’s adult children were not dependents and sought a 50% deduction in compensation.
The High Court partially upheld both appeals, granting a 30% addition for prospects but reducing the compensation due to the exclusion of the deceased’s adult children as dependents. The final compensation was fixed at Rs 24,44,183.
Dissatisfied, the claimants approached the Supreme Court, which focused on whether the High Court erred in excluding adult children as dependents. Citing National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors (2020), the apex court reiterated that major, married, and earning sons of a deceased person qualify as legal representatives for compensation claims.
Examining the case, the court noted that the deceased’s sons were employed in low-paying or temporary jobs and lived with him. “In such circumstances, it cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased,” the bench stated, extending the same logic to the married daughter.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling, reinstating the eligibility of the deceased’s adult children for compensation, and modified the orders passed by the High Court and MACT accordingly.
