.jpg)
Supreme Court: Legal Heirs of Negligent Driver Not Eligible for Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act
- Ritik Agrawal
- Jul 19
- 4 min read
Harishri S
SASTRA Deemed University
Editor- Malla Greeshma
The Supreme Court of India, on July 2, 2025, held that if a person dies in a crash because of their own negligent and rash driving, their heirs and family members are not entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988.
This judgment was passed in a case involving a man named N.S. Ravisha. He died in a car accident in the year 2014. His legal heirs applied for compensation, but their claim was rejected. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, and the apex court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
INTRODUCTION:
The concept of compensation for victims of road accidents was introduced through the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was considered a crucial element of social justice in India. This act ensured that the victims affected by road accidents would receive compensation for their medical expenses and their family’s financial loss. Initially, there was no line between genuine accidents and accidents caused by the driver’s negligence. In a recent case, this rule changed. It clarifies that the family members of a negligent driver cannot claim compensation under this act.
Let’s discuss this case.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
Name of the Case: G. Nagarathna & Others v. G. Manjunatha & Anr.
Here, the car accident took place in Karnataka on June 18, 2024. N.S. Ravisha was driving from Mallasandra village to Arsikere. Her father, sister, and niece were travelling with her. While driving at high speed, Ravisha lost control of the vehicle and died in the crash.
After his death, the legal heirs of the deceased made a compensation claim. These heirs included his wife, son and parents. They stated that Ravisha’s monthly income was around Rs. 3 lakh and that it was the primary source of income for them. On this basis, they claimed Rs. 80 lakhs as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for their serious financial loss.
JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) heard the case first. It examined the police charge sheet and concluded that the deceased, Ravisha, was responsible for the accident. The evidence demonstrates that he was driving negligently. Thus, Ravisha could not control the car. As the accident was a result of his fault, the tribunal ruled that his family is not entitled to receive any compensation for the loss.
The legal heirs preferred to take this case to the Karnataka High Court, being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal. But the High Court upheld the decision of the MACT and rejected the appeal.
The High Court also stated that the accident happened only because of the deceased person’s negligent and rash driving. So, his family could not claim insurance or compensation of any sort when he caused the fatal accident that put his family members at a serious financial loss.
Still aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the family approached the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATION:
The bench for this case included two Hon’ble judges. They are Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan. They reviewed the observations made by the MACT and the High Court.
Without any changes in the previous decisions, the Supreme Court came to the same conclusion and upheld the judgments of the lower courts.
The Supreme Court stated that the deceased was at fault. The accident happened due to Ravish’s rash and negligent driving. There were no signs of a tyre burst or a mechanical failure. So, it cannot be considered an act of nature. No valid evidence supported the claim made by the legal heirs. There were no eyewitnesses, nor was a report made by an expert to prove that there was a fault in the car during the accident. This accident was clearly due to the uncontrollable speed of the car. It was a result of the deceased’s actions.
FINAL JUDGMENT:
As a final judgment, the Supreme Court of India referred to the ruling of Ningamma and anr. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. It dismissed the appeal filed by Ravish’s legal heirs. It upheld the decisions of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court.
The final order passed by the judge was:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed[1].”
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court made it clear that compensation is not an absolute right under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is decided only by considering who was at fault. It emphasises accountability in road safety and ensures that nobody misuses the provisions to benefit from self-inflicted harm. This is a case based on the concept of “plaintiff the wrongdoer”.
REFERENCES:
· Legal Heirs Of Negligent Driver Not Entitled To Compensation Under Motor Vehicle Act : Supreme Court
[1] G. Nagarathna & Others v. G. Manjunatha & Anr., 22411/2025
Comments