Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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