CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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