The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shape the court's approach to compensation claims, especially in scenarios where the claimant dies post-accident:

• Kanamma v. Deputy General Manager, ILR (1990) - Emphasized the abatement of personal injury claims upon the death of the claimant.
• Uttam Kumar v. Madhav (2002) - Reinforced the principle that compensation claims could not be fixed using multipliers in cases unrelated to the accident's direct cause of death.
• Umedchand Golcha v. Dayaram (2002) - Highlighted the distinction between personal injuries and loss to the estate.
• Pravabati Gosh v. Gautam Das (2009) - Supported the notion that legal representatives could pursue claims related to loss of estate.
• Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil v. Raliyatbahen Mohanbhai Savlia (2009) - Advocated for a liberal interpretation of compensation claims beyond personal injuries.
• Maimuna Begum v. Taju (1989) - Rejected the old English Common Law maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona”, allowing heirs to pursue claims post-demise.
• Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2019) and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) - Supported the use of multipliers for assessing loss of income and future prospects.

The Supreme Court adopted a broad and liberal interpretation of Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing the Act’s welfare-oriented objectives. It distinguished between personal injury claims, which abate upon the claimant’s death, and loss to the estate, which can be pursued by legal representatives. The Court underscored that losses such as medical expenses, loss of income, and future prospects are assets to the estate and hence, compensable. It criticized the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for its inadequate compensation and highlighted the necessity of considering all factors, including potential earning capacity and incurred expenses, to determine 'just compensation'. The rejection of the “actio personalis” maxim was pivotal in allowing claims related to the estate to survive the claimant’s death.

This judgment sets a significant precedent in motor accident claims, particularly in delineating the boundaries between personal injuries and loss to the estate. It reinforces the principle that while personal injury claims may not survive death, claims related to the estate are valid and actionable by legal representatives. This decision is poised to influence future litigations by ensuring that heirs can seek comprehensive compensation covering not just immediate injuries but also financial losses sustained due to the accident. It aligns judicial practice with the welfare objectives of the Motor Vehicles Act, promoting fairness and justice for surviving family members.