Abandoning Arbitration Proceedings Bars Fresh Section 11 Application On Same Cause Of Action: Supreme Court Department Must Lead Evidence, Examine Witnesses To Prove Charges Unless Employee Clearly Admits Guilt: Supreme Court Order IX Rule 13 And Section 96 CPC Have Distinct Scopes; Minor Unrepresented In Original Suit Can Seek Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree: Supreme Court Minor Heir Cannot Be Expected To Respond To Public Notice Independently: Supreme Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Succession Certificate Supreme Court Restores Acquittal In POCSO Case, Holds DNA Evidence Not Infallible If Blood Sample Collection Is Disputed Bar Under Section 197 CrPC Applies At Stage Of Cognizance; Subsequent Notification Cannot Invalidate Valid Proceedings: Supreme Court State Cannot Apply Harsher Remission Policy Retrospectively To Deny Premature Release: Supreme Court Superficial Bail Orders In Dowry Death Cases Weaken Public Faith In Judiciary: Supreme Court Cancels Husband's Bail Non-Deposit of Balance Amount During Suit Doesn't Prove Lack Of Readiness: Bombay High Court Grants Specific Performance Of 1978 Oral Agreement Teacher Appointed In 'Pass' Graduate Category Entitled To Higher Pay Scale Upon Acquiring Master's Degree During Service: Calcutta High Court Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Under Section 144 BNSS Must Be Challenged Before Family Court First, Direct Revision Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court Occupant Cannot Be Denied Electricity Merely Because Decree-Holder Demands Disconnection Pending Eviction: Andhra Pradesh High Court Anticipatory Bail In PMLA Cannot Be Granted If Accused Obstructs Probe & Gives False Answers Even If Beneficiary Of Section 45 Proviso: Delhi High Court Tender Condition Disqualifying Bidders For Past Bridge Collapses Does Not Amount To Blacklisting: Gauhati High Court Mere Unauthorized Entry On Government Land Does Not Constitute Criminal Trespass Without Intent To Annoy: Himachal Pradesh High Court Mere Buildings Without Life-Saving Machinery Don't Fulfil Article 21 Mandate: Jharkhand HC Orders State-Wide Functional Burn Wards Within 120 Days Unestablished Claim Of Co-Heirship Does Not Mandate Reference To Civil Court For Apportionment Of NHAI Compensation: J&K High Court Accused Cannot Defer Cross-Examination By Merely Claiming Defence Strategy Will Be Disclosed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allegations Confined To Negligence, Not Criminal Intent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ex-SGPC Secretary In Missing 'Saroops' Case True Owner Cannot Unlawfully Enter Tenanted Premises Under Guise Of Ownership To Commit Offence: Kerala High Court Upholds Landlord's Conviction RTO Officials Cannot Seize Vehicles Without Specific Statutory Authority; Actions Pending Writ Proceeding Highly Improper: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Flags West Bengal Incidents, Orders Central Forces to Shield Judges on Ground Duty Two-Judge Bench Can Modify Three-Judge Bench Orders: Supreme Court Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of 'Grand Venice' Promoter, Forfeits ₹50 Crore Deposit Over Siphoning Of Funds During IBC Moratorium

Right to Compensation for Injury Survives Death of Claimant — Legal Representatives Can Continue Appeal” Supreme Court

27 September 2025 8:41 PM

By: sayum


“Even if death is unconnected with accident injuries, legal heirs can pursue the claim — Section 166(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act overrides Section 306 of Succession Act” - In a landmark ruling Supreme Court of India upheld the maintainability of an appeal for enhancement of compensation even after the death of the injured claimant, declaring that legal representatives can continue such proceedings, regardless of whether the death is related to the injuries from the accident.

This clarification came in the backdrop of conflicting decisions across High Courts on whether claims for personal injury abate upon the death of the claimant. The Court's interpretation of the new sub-section (5) to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (inserted in 2022) firmly settles the law in favour of survival of such claims.

“Amendment of 2022 Cures the Legal Doubt — Compensation Claim Now Forms Part of the Estate”

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Dhannalal alias Dhanraj, who had sustained 100% disability in a motor vehicle accident. During the pendency of the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, he passed away on 24.04.2024. The legal representatives were substituted and the insurance company objected to continuation of the appeal, citing Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which traditionally bars survival of personal injury claims post-death.

However, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, delivering the judgment for the Bench, categorically rejected this objection by invoking the 2022 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, observing:

“The right to claim compensation for the injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident hence survives on the legal representatives of the injured even if the injured dies in the course of the proceedings for reasons not relatable to or having any nexus with the injuries sustained.”

Citing Section 166(5) as inserted by Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2022, the Court emphasized:

“Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of a person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.”

This provision, the Court noted, overrides all contrary interpretations, including the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhagwati Bai v. Bablu (AIR 2007 MP 38), which had held that personal injury claims abate upon death unless the death is caused by the injury itself.

Supreme Court Affirms Wider Interpretation of “Estate” and Compensation

The Court referred to its recent judgments in:

  • Meena (Dead) through LRs v. Prayagraj & Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1433)

  • Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon [(2022) 13 SCC 494]

In Meena, the Court had held that the compensation due for injury becomes part of the injured's estate, and the heirs are entitled to receive it if it remains unpaid at the time of death. The present bench followed the same reasoning:

“We see absolutely no reason to differ from the declaration of law… If the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, there is no reason to prohibit the legal representatives to pursue claims for loss of a property akin to estate of the injured, if the injured dies subsequently.”

The Court reaffirmed that compensation for injury is not merely personal relief but also property right, forming part of the deceased’s estate.

Legal Representatives Can Pursue Injury Claim Regardless of Cause of Death

This ruling cements the principle that:

  • Injury claims under Section 166 do not abate upon death of the injured claimant post-2022.

  • The claim survives irrespective of whether death was related to the injury or not.

  • Legal heirs are entitled to continue the proceedings and receive compensation as part of the estate.

“We find no merit in the insurer’s objection. The appeal stands allowed. Legal representatives are entitled to the compensation enhanced in this judgment,” the Court concluded.

This decision is poised to have significant implications in pending and future motor accident claims, ensuring that rightful compensation does not lapse with death and claimants’ families are not left remediless due to outdated procedural objections.

Date of Decision: 26 September 2025

Latest Legal News