In Shishupal @ Shish Ram And Ors. v. Surjeet And Ors. 2026, the Supreme Court recognised 'loss of domestic care' as an additional ground for compensation in Motor Accident Claims. By acknowledging the elevated status of a 'housewife' as a 'homemaker', the Court significantly increased the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 8.43 lakh to Rs. 66.70 lakh for the...
In Shishupal @ Shish Ram And Ors. v. Surjeet And Ors. 2026, the Supreme Court recognised 'loss of domestic care' as an additional ground for compensation in Motor Accident Claims. By acknowledging the elevated status of a 'housewife' as a 'homemaker', the Court significantly increased the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 8.43 lakh to Rs. 66.70 lakh for the heirs of a deceased homemaker who died in a motor accident resulting from rash and negligent driving in 2001.
This discussion highlights the need to understand the process for assessing compensation in motor-accident death cases. To effectively settle claim amounts with insurance companies, it is essential to comprehend the underlying principles and methodologies used in compensation calculation.
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in India is determined using standardised formulas. Here, the focus is on the assessment and calculation of compensation in cases involving fatalities resulting from motor accidents.
How Is Compensation In Cases Of Accidental Death Calculated?
In the event of an accidental death, the legal representatives of the deceased generally institute a Claims case. The determination of compensation broadly involves six steps: 1) the determination of the age of the deceased, 2) the income of the deceased person, 3) expenditures from the income of the person, 4) the multiplier determination, 5) future prospects of the person so deceased, and 6) the funeral and other expenses.
To calculate the Claims amount, there are two relevant cases decided by the Supreme Court of India. The first case being the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009:INSC:506 through which the multiplier is determined, while the other being the National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors. in 2017, which is a landmark in determining the future prospects, which will be added finally to the claims amount.
Steps To Determine Compensation
1. Age of the Deceased
Among the six steps, the age of the deceased is of prime importance. To determine the age, the school certificates of the deceased person are taken on record, or an age certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat or the Municipal Corporation can be made admissible. In addition, the certificates issued by the deceased's employer may form part of the record. The court can also determine the deceased person's age through the statements of the deceased's legal representatives. And finally, if there is no such certificate, his Aadhaar card, ration card, or Bhamasha card can be made admissible for determining his age.
2. Income of the Deceased
Once the age is determined, the deceased's monthly income is the next factor. If the deceased person had a permanent or government job, his payslip can be a determining factor in his income. If the person is an employee in a company or a shop, their payslip may be produced in court to determine their income. If the deceased managed a business, firm, company, or any other institution, his records may be a determining factor. If the deceased is unemployed, the minimum wages declared by the Labour Department of the Centre or the State government determine his income.
There are basically three classes under the minimum wage. If a person has certificates in a skill, for instance, as a plumber, tailor, or electrician, they would fall into the category of skilled labour, through which they generate their income or could have generated it. The other is the semi-skilled category of labour, which is not fully skilled but possesses a certain degree of skill in an area. And lastly, if the deceased is uneducated or unskilled, he falls into the unskilled labour category. The court in this case determines his wage according to the government-recognized minimum wage.
It is to be noted that the court gives primacy to documentary evidence over other evidence. But if no documentary evidence is available, the oral evidence of the deceased's legal representatives and the minimum wages as determined by the government serve as the determining factors.
Illustration: For the purpose of illustration, if a boy dies in a motor accident and the court determines his age as 25 years and his monthly income as 5000 rupees a month, this would make his yearly income as 60,000/- (5000 * 12 months). Now, in order to determine his personal expenditures, the case of Sarla Verma is the law of the land.
3. Expenditures
According to Sarla Verma, if the deceased person was unmarried, one-half of the income will be deducted as personal expenses. Secondly, if the family of the deceased had 2-3 members, one-third of the deceased's income will be deducted. Thirdly, if the deceased's family had 4-6 members, one-fourth of the income will be deducted. And finally, if the members are 6+, one-fifth of their income will be deducted.
These deductions will be made from the yearly income so determined by the court. Therefore, going back to the illustration where the age of the deceased boy was 25 years and his yearly income was determined as 60,000 rupees. Therefore, now taking his family members as 3, which includes his father, mother, and wife, the deduction would now be one-third of 60,000 rupees, that is 20,000. So now his yearly income would be determined to be 40,000 (60,000 - 20,000).
It is to be noted that tax deductions would be made if the yearly income falls within the tax slab. But in this case, as the income falls below the tax slab, there will be no tax deductions. Also, it must be clarified that such deduction (20,000/-), which is one-third of the income of the deceased, is solely done for the reason that the Court is of the opinion that a person does not spend or give his complete income to the family. He keeps a portion of his income for personal expenses. In this case, it is 20,000 rupees. Therefore, the family of the deceased is entitled to compensation for the remaining amount.
4. Determination of Multiplier
In motor accident claims, the multiplier system standardizes the assessment of future loss of income. It is a method for calculating total compensation for loss of dependency by multiplying the annual loss (multiplicand) by a factor (multiplier) equal to the number of years the loss is expected to continue. This method has evolved through judicial decisions, ensuring uniformity while allowing flexibility based on age, income, and circumstances. The second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act provides structured multipliers based on the deceased's age.
As far as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 are applicable. Rule 220 A (1) states that the multiplier for the determination of loss of income is to be applied as per the Second Schedule of the Act.
Therefore, the next step is to determine the multiplier. According to Sarla Verma, the following is the multiplier:-
Age of deceased (Years) | Multiplier |
15–20 | 18 |
20–25 | 18 |
26–30 | 17 |
31–35 | 16 |
36–40 | 15 |
41–45 | 14 |
46–50 | 13 |
51–55 | 11 |
56–60 | 9 |
61–65 | 7 |
66–70 | 5 |
There is no multiplier below the age of 15 years and above the age of 70 years, as the court is of the opinion that a person is not capable of generating any income below the age of 15 and above the age of 70 years.
As illustrated, the deceased boy was 25 years old; therefore, the multiplier of 18 would apply. Thus, 40,000* 18= 7,20,000.
5. Future Prospects
Future prospects refer to the anticipated increase in the income of the deceased or injured person over time in motor accident claims. The Courts add a certain percentage to the actual income (for instance, 40%) to reflect this likely increase, especially in the case of young professionals or government employees who have seen promotions, pay hikes, etc. Therefore, while deciding the quantum of compensation, the future prospects of the deceased will be added to the claims amount.
Under the State of Uttar Pradesh, 220 A (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 states that the future prospects of a deceased shall be added to the 'actual salary' or 'minimum wages'.
To determine the future prospects of the deceased, the judgment of Pranay Sethi is the law of the land. The Supreme Court observed that every Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT Court) must follow the said ruling while determining the future prospects of a deceased person. Compensation for future prospects is a sensible step, as there is a prospect of income growth for every person. For instance, there may be opportunities for promotion or increment, commission or enhanced income, or business enhancement or sources of extra income.
There are various MACT courts which do not determine the future prospects, and thus, it is not granted to the legal representatives of the deceased.
According to Pranay Sethi, the future prospects are calculated as follows:
Table of Future Prospects
A. Permanent Job
Age | Future Prospects (%) |
Below 40 years | 50% |
40–50 years | 30% |
50–60 years | 15% |
B. Business / Non-Permanent Job
Age | Future Prospects (%) |
Below 40 years | 40% |
40–50 years | 25% |
50–60 years | 10% |
In case the age is above 60 years, no such future prospects will be added to the compensation amount.
According to the above illustration, where 7,20,000 was previously calculated, 40% of the future prospectus will now be added, as the deceased was 25 years old and unskilled. Therefore now ₹7,20,000 × 40 ÷ 100 = ₹2,88,000
Now, ₹2,88,000 + ₹7,20,000 = ₹10,08,000
Therefore, the total amount is ₹10,08,000 (Rupees Ten Lakh Eight Thousand Only).
5. Cremation / Funeral expenses
The judgment of Pranay Sethi makes three more additions to the total amount of compensation granted to the family of the deceased. The first being the 'cremation/funeral expenses' of 15,000 rupees. The second is the 'loss of consortium' in case the deceased leaves a widow behind, which is 40,000 rupees. The third being the 'loss of estate', which is 15,000 rupees, making a total of 70,000 rupees (15,000+40,000+ 15,000).
There was a certain degree of confusion as far as the heads of 'loss of love and affection' and 'loss of consortium' are concerned. There were cases brought before the apex court in the case of the New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somvati and others 2020:INSC:535, where the Supreme Court categorically held that there is no justification for the award of compensation under the separate head 'loss of love and affection'. It further stated that the constitutional bench judgment in Pranay Sethi is the law of the land and there are only three conventional heads, namely 'loss of estate', 'loss of consortium,' and 'funeral expenses', for which the amount is already determined. And therefore, the separate head 'loss of love and affection' is wholly without jurisdiction, as the same is under the umbrella term 'loss of consortium'.
Law So Far
After a motor accident occurs, there are generally two types of liability imposed on the accused or respondent. The first is criminal liability, where an FIR is filed, while the second is a civil or claims case by the claimant or injured person. The petitioner or claimant files a petition in the court under section 140, 166 of the MV Act, where the first party becomes the petitioner or the claimant, while the second becomes the respondent against whom the case is filed.
The petitioner or claimant in this case can be either the injured person or the legal representatives of the deceased, while the respondents are generally the vehicle owner, the driver who caused the accident, and the insurance company. If the vehicle is insured, then the responsibility falls upon the insurance company.
After the case is registered, the petitioner must present all the facts to the court, and if the court is satisfied, it will issue a summons to the respondent. The respondents shall file their reply within 60 days upon receiving the summons, and then the stage of evaluation of evidence will follow, upon which a judgment will be pronounced. The parties have the right to appeal under section 173 within 90 days, provided that, if respondents wish to appeal, they must deposit 50% of the total claims amount in the trial court.
The law on accidental claims is continuously evolving. There have been various landmarks delivered by the Apex Court allowing a married sister/ daughter, a brother, or even a charity, compensation before the MACT.
Certain Other Relevant Terminologies
1. Medico-Legal Case
A medico-legal case (MLC) refers to an injury or ailment that requires investigation by law enforcement agencies to determine who is responsible for its causation. Common types of MLCs include burns, hanging, electrocution, poisoning, and all road traffic accidents.
In cases of road traffic accidents (RTA), it is the primary duty of the attending physician to provide medical treatment to the injured individual. Refusal to provide such treatment constitutes a violation of legal provisions. According to the Code of Medical Ethics Regulations, 2002, and the Supreme Court judgment in Pt. Parmanand Katara Vs. UOI 1989:INSC:256, failure to treat an injured person in an RTA may result in punishment of up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹10,000.
The procedure for registering a medico-legal case begins with the treatment of the injured individual. Subsequently, it is determined whether the incident qualifies as a medico-legal case. Notification is then provided to the police, either in writing to the nearest police station or via telephone. An acknowledgment receipt from the police is obtained for future reference.
Direct losses resulting from injury in an accident, such as treatment costs and mental agony, are typically awarded as lump sum amounts by courts. The Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr. 2026 held that the mediclaim amount cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation.
The appellant-insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited, contended that reimbursement of medical expenses under a Mediclaim policy, followed by compensation for the same expenses under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act), would violate the principle of restitution and result in a double benefit.
The Supreme Court, in rejecting this argument, held that Mediclaim benefits arise from a contractual arrangement supported by premium payments, while compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory entitlement resulting from a motor accident and governed by the principle of just compensation. Consequently, the Court determined that these two payments operate in distinct domains and do not overlap, as they address separate losses.
2. Death Certificate
The death certificate, as far as the state of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, is prepared by the Department of Medical and Health (Nagar Nigam or Block Development Office) and includes the following details:
a) name of the deceased,
b) his or her Aadhaar card number,
c) date of death,
d) name of the husband or wife,
e) name of the mother of deceased,
f) name of the father,
g) address of the deceased at the time of death,
h) registration number, date of issuance,
i) the sex of the person who deceased,
j) the age of the deceased,
k) the place of death,
l) the Aadhaar card details of husband or wife of the deceased,
m) the Aadhaar card details of the mother of the deceased,
n) the Aadhaar card details of the father of the deceased,
o) the permanent address of the deceased, and
p) the date of registration.
Documents such as the First Information Report (FIR), charge sheet, site plan, death certificate, and post-mortem report are typically submitted to establish the fact of a person's death before the court. In numerous cases, a post-mortem examination is not conducted. For example, in Sh. Dhani Ram (Father of the Deceased) vs Mohammad Azam (Driver), MACP No. 136/2019, before the Court of Ms. Rekha, PO MACT-01 (South West District), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, the post-mortem of the deceased was not performed, and instead, a photocopy of the death certificate was presented as evidence.
Following the 2019 Amendment, Section 166(5) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, it is no longer necessary to prove the cause of death in many jurisdictions.
1. No fault Liability
Fault is 'Sine Qua Non' to claim damages under the law of Torts. Justice Fazal Ali in Manjusri Raha Vs B.L. Gupta 1977:INSC:49, in view of the faster growth of vehicular traffic and loss of life and limbs due to the frequency of motor accidents, observed :
“The time is ripe for serious consideration of creating no-fault liability. Having regard to the directive principles of State policy , the poverty of the ordinary run of victims of automobile accidents, the compulsory nature of insurance of motor vehicles, the nationalization of general insurance companies and the expanding trend towards nationalization of bus transport, the law of torts based on no-fault liability needs reform”
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in Concord of India Insurance Co. Vs Nirmala 1979:INSC:84 observed:
“The jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop in the direction of no-fault liability and the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.”
In light of the Supreme Court's observations and the Law Commission's recommendations, the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was amended, with Chapter X introduced and, under sec 95, no-fault liability provided. The MV Act 1988 replaced the 1939 Act. Chapter X of the Act 1988 deals with it.
1. Sec 140 speaks about liability to pay compensation in case of death or permanent disability.
2. Sec 141 speaks about other rights to claim compensation.
3. Sec 142 defines permanent disability.
4. Sec 143 states about the applicability of Chapter X to the Workmen's Compensation Act.
5. Sec 144 speaks about the overriding effect.
According to S. 140- In case of Death or Permanent Disability of any person in an Accident arising out of the use of Motor Vehicle(s). Owner(s) - jointly and severally liable to pay. In case of – Death: Rs 50,000/ –, Permanent Disability: Rs 25,000/-. Fault on the part of the owner or driver, not to be pleaded, and fault of the Deceased or injured is not a defense. Also, entitled to compensation under other laws except under Section 163A.
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, addresses the concept of 'no fault liability.' Under this provision, a claimant involved in a motor vehicle accident is not required to prove any wrongful act or default by the vehicle's owner or any other person. This principle imposes liability for compensation on the owner of the motor vehicle, regardless of whether fault is established in connection with the accident.
A claim under these provisions remains valid regardless of any wrongful act, neglect, or default by the claimant. Consequently, the legal defense of contributory negligence is unavailable to the motorist and the insurer.
These provisions apply in cases where the claimant suffers death or permanent disablement, as defined in the Act. The compensation to be paid in case of no-fault liability is:
1. Death – Rs. 50,000
2. Permanent Disablement – Rs. 25,000
The purpose of the no-fault principle is to provide prompt statutory relief to victims of road accidents or their legal representatives. Accordingly, these provisions serve as an instrument of social justice.
No-fault liability represents a significant departure from the traditional common law principle, which requires a claimant to establish negligence on the part of the owner or driver of a motor vehicle before seeking compensation for death or permanent disability resulting from a motor vehicle accident.
The right to claim compensation under Section 140 for death or permanent disablement is supplementary to any other right to claim compensation available under other provisions of this Act or any other applicable law currently in force.
3. Hit and Run Motor Accident
The term 'Hit and Run motor accident' means an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the identity of which cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose.
A key element of a 'hit and run motor accident' is that the vehicle responsible for the incident remains untraceable despite reasonable efforts to identify it.
The government has created the 'Solatium Fund' for the victims of 'hit and run motor accident cases' in accordance with Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
According to Section 161, the amount of compensation is:
a) Rs. 25,000 in case of death
b) Rs. 12,500 in case of grievous hurt
4. Third Party Insurance
The damages system involves two distinct types of insurance: third-party liability insurance, often referred to by the insurance company as liability insurance, and first-party insurance.
A third-party insurance policy is an agreement in which the insurance company undertakes to indemnify the insured if the insured is sued or found legally liable for injuries or damage to a third party. In this arrangement, the insured constitutes the first party, the insurance company is the second party, and the individual who suffers injury and claims damages is the third party.
Note: Third-party insurance is mandatory for all motor vehicles. This type of insurance does not provide coverage for injuries sustained by the insured, but rather for injuries caused to the 'rest of the world' by the insured. The primary beneficiary of third-party insurance is the injured third party, while the insured or policyholder is only a nominal beneficiary. This insurance is predominantly fault-based and typically requires legal assistance.
Third-party insurance is less favoured by insurance companies than first-party insurance because the maximum potential pay-outs under third-party policies are unpredictable.
Legal Defence Available to the Insurance Companies Towards Third Party
Insurance Companies have been allowed no other defence except the following:
a) Use of vehicle for hire and reward not permit to ply such vehicle.
b) For organizing racing and speed testing.
c) Use of transport vehicle not allowed by permit.
d) Driver not holding valid driving license or have been disqualified for holding such license.
e) Policy taken is void as the same is obtained by non-disclosure of material fact.
Recently, the Supreme Court, interpreting the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, determined that even when the Insurance Company successfully pleads and proves a defense, it remains liable to compensate the third party. However, the Insurance Company may recover the paid amount from the insured owner.
In the landmark judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Swaran Singh, 2004:INSC:4, the Supreme Court held that proving a breach of condition, not holding a driving license, holding a fake license, or carrying a gratuitous passenger, does not absolve the Insurance Company of liability unless it is demonstrated that the breach occurred with the knowledge of the owner. Furthermore, a learner's license is considered a valid license and does not exempt the Insurance Company from liability.
This judgment represents a significant legal precedent and implicitly recommends that the government eliminate such defences from legislation, thereby ensuring that victims receive appropriate compensation.
Principle of Indemnity
The principle of indemnity asserts that, upon the occurrence of a loss, the insured shall be restored to the same financial position he occupied immediately before the loss. In other words, the insured shall get neither more nor less than the actual amount of loss sustained.
The principle of indemnity was well cared for in the leading case of Castellain v. Preston (1883) in the following way:
“A contract of insurance is necessarily a contract of indemnity (except life and personal accident insurance) and of indemnity only, and this means that in case of a loss the insured shall be fully indemnified, but shall never be more than fully indemnified.”
The indemnity principle may be adjusted in three ways:
1. Valued policies for subject matters which do not have a measurable value.
2. Allowing more than indemnity.
3. Allowing less than indemnity.
Principle Of Contribution
The contribution principle in insurance specifies the procedure when an individual purchases coverage for the same event from multiple insurers, and the insured event occurs. According to this principle, if a claim is filed with one insurer, that insurer is entitled to recover a proportional share from the other participating insurance companies.
The contribution principle is applied when multiple insurance policies cover the same property or loss. In such cases, the total payment for the actual loss is proportionally divided among all involved insurance companies.
For the contribution principle to apply, the policies must be contracts of indemnity. Additionally, the party holding the insurable interest in the property must be the same, the perils causing the damage must be common, and the subject matter must also be identical.
Consequently, the contribution principle applies exclusively to insurance contracts that qualify as contracts of indemnity.
Conditions Required for the Operation of the Contribution Principle
The following conditions must be met for the contribution principle to operate:
1. More than one policy must be involved, and all policies covering the loss must be in force.
2. All policies must cover the same subject matter.
3. All policies must cover the same peril causing the loss.
4. All policies must cover the same interest of the same insured party.
Principle of Utmost Good Faith
The principle of Utmost Good Faith, also known as Uberrimae Fides, obligates both the policyholder and the insurer to disclose all material and relevant information to each other prior to the commencement of the contract.
Section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938 stipulates that if, within two years of the commencement or revival of an insurance policy, the insurer discovers non-disclosure or misrepresentation of material facts, the insurer may declare the policy null and void.
This provision implies that if, within two years, the insurance company determines that the policyholder has provided false information or omitted relevant facts on the proposal form, the company may cancel the policy and deny any claims.
Therefore, the proposer is obligated to make full disclosure of all material facts. Failure to do so may render the contract null and void. In life insurance, the duty of disclosure persists until the risk commences.
The burden of proof regarding non-disclosure or misrepresentation rests with the insurance company, and this responsibility is significant.
As a financial agreement, an insurance contract must be entered into in accordance with the principle of utmost good faith. In contrast, commercial contracts are governed by the principle of caveat emptor, which means let the buyer beware.
Therefore, it is essential for the policyholder to disclose all relevant information at the inception of the policy to ensure that beneficiaries do not face obstacles when making a claim the event of the insured's death.
Contributory Negligence & Composite Negligence
Negligence, as far as a motor accident is concerned, means the failure to exercise the required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. The Supreme Court in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others, 2015:INSC:389 has held that, where injuries have been caused to the claimants by the combined wrongful act of joint tortfeasors, it is a case of 'composite negligence' as against contributory negligence.
There is a marked difference between the two concepts. In case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident, but the outcome of the combination of negligence of two or more other persons.
The Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors., 2008:INSC:132 reads thus:
“6.'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.”
In case of contributory negligence, there is no specific statutory provision mandating a percentage reduction of compensation. The issue is generally determined by the court on the facts of each case, and the court may, in its discretion, reduce the compensation depending upon the extent of contributory negligence established.
Who can file an application for compensation?
According to S. 166 (1), an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made—
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Place of Filing
According to S. 166 (2), every application for under SS (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal:-
1. having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred
2. within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides
3. within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant carries on business
4. within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.
Limitation
Section 166(3) MV Act state, “No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.”
The provision was introduced through the 2019 amendment and came into effect in April 2022.
Appeal
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Claims Tribunal may appeal within ninety days from the date of the award before the High Court. But if the award is below one lakh rupees, no such appeal would lie. (Section 173).
The Apex Court has, in Dhannalal alias Dhanraj (Dead) through LRs v Nasir Khan, 2025 INSC 1177, gone to the extent of allowing the right to seek compensation for injuries by the legal representatives of the deceased, even when the death is unrelated to the injuries.
As per the illustration, the claim amount is determined to be 10,08,000/-. Now, the 'cremation/funeral expenses' of 15,000 rupees, 'loss of consortium' of 40,000 rupees and the 'loss of estate' would be added to the claim amount, making a total of 10,78,000 rupees of compensation to be granted to the family of the deceased.
In addition, he would also be given interest on the compensation amount at the bank rate from the backdate, i.e., the date of institution of the suit. Therefore, the interest will now be calculated from the date of institution of the suit till the date the insurance company pays the amount to the legal representatives of the deceased. The interest rate is not fixed and varies from 6% to almost 11% depending on the city and state. As there is no set interest rate, the family of the deceased would receive an amount of 10,78,000 plus the interest determined by the court.
Author is a PhD Scholar, Department of Human Rights, School of Legal Studies, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (Central) University, Lucknow. Views are personal.