DEEP SHIKHA & ANR. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 6 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 12-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 365 : 2025 INSC 675
Deep Shikha & Anr. 
v. 
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6641-6642 of 2025)
13 May 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellants challenge the common judgement and order of 
the High Court whereby High Court reduced the compensation 
payable to appellant no.1 and dismissed the claim in so far as it 
relates appellant no.2 in a case arising out of a claim petition filed 
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Victim-deceased died in a 
road accident – A claim petition was filed by the appellant  
no.1-married daughter of deceased and appellant no.2-mother 
of deceased – Tribunal allowed the claim petition to an extent 
of Rs.15,97,000/- – Claimants-Appellants and respondent  
no.1-Insurance Company preferred separate appeals before the 
High Court – The High Court modified the award and reduced 
the compensation awarded to appellant no.1 to Rs.50,000/- and 
set aside the award qua appellant no.2 as they could not be 
considered as dependents of the deceased for the purpose 
of calculating compensation – Correctness:
Held: The deceased was married but her husband had left her 
soon after the birth of appellant no.1 (her daughter), after which 
appellant no.2 (her mother) was living with the deceased daughter – 
Appellant no.1 is married – A married daughter may be considered 
a legal representative, but she will not be eligible for loss of 
dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter 
that she was financially dependent on the deceased – Thus, it is 
clear from the record that appellant no.1 has failed to prove that 
she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage 
and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the 
deceased – Therefore, the High Court correctly relied on Manjuri 
* Author
366
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Bera while holding that appellant no.1, as the legal representative 
of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged 
in s.140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – However, the High 
Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s award as it relates to 
appellant no.2, the mother of the deceased – The obligation of a 
child to maintain their parent in old age is as much of a duty as 
the obligation of a parent to maintain their child during minority – 
The deceased, being the only provider, would be assumed to be 
fulfilling this obligation, further reinforcing appellant no.2’s status 
as a dependent – The Tribunal did not consider all the factors 
relating to appellant no.2 – Thus, taking into consideration all 
relevant factors such as the total income of the deceased, loss 
of estate, loss of filial consortium etc, appellant no.2 is entitled to 
compensation of Rs.19,22,356/- – Therefore, the impugned order 
insofar as it pertains to the compensation awarded to appellant 
no.1, is upheld – However, the impugned order with respect to the 
dismissal of the claim of appellant no. 2, warrants interference – 
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.19,22,356/- is awarded to appellant no.2 
as compensation. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20]
Case Law Cited
Manjuri Bera & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr [2007] 
4 SCR 590 : (2007) 10 SCC 634; National Insurance Company 
Limited v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680; 
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and 
Anr. [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 – referred to.
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
List of Keywords
Motor Vehicle Accident claim; Compensation; Reduction of 
compensation; Loss of dependency compensation; Financially 
dependent; Daughter post marriage; Obligation of child; Parent 
at old age; Loss of estate; Loss of filial consortium.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 6641-6642 
of 2025
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 
367
Deep Shikha & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2018 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCMA No. 3576 and 
SBCMA No. 6251 of 2011
Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellants:
Abhishek Gupta.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Samir Malik.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
By way of the present appeals, the Appellants challenge the common 
judgement and order of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaip
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.