'After Marriage, Daughter Presumed To Be Supported By Husband' : Supreme Court Rejects Compensation Claim Over Mother's Death

Observing that a married daughter is presumed not to be dependent on the parents, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea of a married daughter who sought motor accident claim compensation in the capacity of a dependent of her deceased mother.

“Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise.”, the Court said.

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, the Court held relying on Manjuri Bera & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, (2007) 10 SCC 634

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran was deciding the matter where the deceased(mother) died in a road accident involving a Rajasthan Roadways bus. The accident occurred due to the negligent, sudden turn of the bus, crushing her two-wheeler. A claim of ₹54.3 lakhs was filed by her married daughter and her elderly mother.

Initially, the MACT awarded compensation to the Appellant No.1/daughter; however, on appeal, the High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the daughter, noting that her dependency on the deceased was not proven, and further set aside the compensation awarded to the Appellant No.2/deceased's mother.

Challenging the High Court's decision, the deceased daughter and elderly mother appealed to the Supreme Court.

The judgment authored by Justice Dhulia although affirmed the High Court's decision regarding the reduction of the compensation amount granted to the married daughter acknowledging that she no longer remained dependent on her deceased mother's income but set aside that part of the High Court's order which set aside the MACT's award granted to the elderly mother.

“Therefore, it is our opinion the High Court correctly relied on Manjuri Bera while holding that Appellant No.1, as the legal representative of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as liability under the same does not cease to exist in the absence of dependency.”, the court said.

“However, the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal's award as it relates to Appellant No. 2, the mother of the deceased. Appellant No. 2 was aged about 70 years of age at the time of the accident resulting in the death of her daughter, the deceased, and was solely dependent on the deceased as she lived with her and had no independent income, there is no evidence on record to rebut the same.”, the court added.

In support of a grant of compensation to the elderly mother qualifying as dependent on the deceased's income, the Court observed:

“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. Therefore, the untimely demise of the deceased may create difficulties for Appellant No. 2 going forward, resulting in hardship. Even if it is assumed that Appellant No. 2 was not dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident, the possibility of future dependency cannot be disregarded.”

“We, therefore, uphold the impugned order insofar as it pertains to the compensation awarded to Appellant No. 1, finding no reason to interfere with the relief granted in her favour. However, we set aside the impugned order with respect to the dismissal of the claim of Appellant No. 2, which, in our considered view, warrants interference. We have assigned reasons for enhancing the compensation to Rs.19,22,356/-. Accordingly, we direct that a sum of Rs.19,22,356/- be awarded to Appellant No. 2 as compensation.”, the court ordered.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed.

Case Title: DEEP SHIKHA & ANR Versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR

For Respondent(s) Dr. Meera Agarwal, AOR Mr. Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Adv. Samir Malik, AOR