Manipulation of Public Issue, Ante-Dated Stock-Invests by Chartered Accountant Unbecoming of the Profession: Delhi High Court Suspends ICAI Member for One Year Allegations Show Continuing Offence— MP High Court Declines to Quash FIR Against NRI Husband, In-Laws Accused of Dowry Demands and Cruelty Proposed Accused Cannot Challenge FIR Direction: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision Against Magistrate’s Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC Evidence Recorded in Section 125 CrPC Proceedings Cannot Be Mechanically Relied Upon in Divorce Suits: Karnataka High Court Dismissal Was Disproportionate: Supreme Court Converts RPF Constable’s Removal Into Compulsory Retirement Post Acquittal 16 Years Is Not Just Delay, It's A Decisive Factor In Granting Relief: Supreme Court Denies Back Wages Despite Illegal Termination, Awards ₹2.5 Lakh Compensation Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | Appellate Court Can Admit Crucial Public Documents to Fill Lacunae: Andhra Pradesh High Court When Suspicion Clouds the Testament: Allahabad High Court Affirms Rejection of Unregistered Will Due to Active Role of Propounder and Contradictions Purchasers Derive No Independent Right from a Terminated Developer: Bombay High Court Reiterates in Redevelopment Dispute Appeal Maintainable Against Discharge of Contempt Rule If Single Judge Modifies Substantive Rights: Calcutta High Court Oil Company Cannot Withdraw LOI on a Fault It Created — Bombay High Court Restores Petrol Pump Dealership for Woman Entrepreneur Admissions of an Acted-Upon Partition Cannot Be Defeated by Revenue Entries: Karnataka High Court Mere Apprehension of Tampering Cannot Justify Forensic Probe: Delhi High Court Promissory Note Is a Mercantile Document When Executed for Business Purposes - Suits Maintainable Before Commercial Courts: Madras High Court An Illiterate Father, Taken to the Registrar in an Autorickshaw, Can’t Be Assumed to Have Consciously Partitioned Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Restores Trial Court’s Partition Decree Insurance Claim No Shield Against Recovery: Civil Court Can't Interfere With SARFAESI Proceedings: Delhi High Court Tears Down Borrower's Suit Sub-Registrar Cannot Act on Private Objections or Police Letters: Madras High Court Slams Refusal to Register Sale Deed Based on Unsubstantiated Protest No Declaration Of Ownership Can Be Granted When Title, Possession, And Vendor's Ownership All Remain Unproven: Punjab & Haryana High Court In a Suit for Bare Injunction, Court Has Only One Question — Who Was in Possession on the Date of Suit?: Karnataka High Court Mere Living Together Doesn't Create a Composite Family: Andhra Pradesh High Court Overturns Partition Decree, Upholds Validity of Century-Old Sale Deed

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