Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

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