IMPORTANT POINT
Amount of compensation under Rule 5(1), Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is deductable from the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – General principles under the common law to estimate damages cannot be invoked for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act – Pecuniary advantage from whatever source must correlate to the injury or death caused on account of motor accident. (Para 12)
       (1999) 1 SCC 90; (2002) 6 SCC 281 – Relied upon
       (1962) 1 SCR 929 : AIR 1962 SC 1 – Distinguished
       (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Compensation – Not defined – Understood to mean to recompense the claimants for the possible loss suffered or likely to be suffered due to sudden and untimely death of their family member as a result of motor accident – Not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit – It must be ‘just’ meaning equitable, fair, reasonable and not arbitrary. (Para 15)
       (2003) 7 SCC 484; (2009) 6 SCC 121 – Relied upon
       (c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 and 167 r/w Rule 5(1), Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 – Compensation under the Act – Any amount due to the dependants of the deceased even otherwise – Not deductible from compensation under the Act – Component of quantum of “loss of income”, in the compensation under the Act, can be “pay and wages” – Compassionate assistance under the Rules also for loss of “pay and wages” – Dependants cannot maintain claim for both. (Para 16, 21, 22)
       F.A.O No.1322 of 2010; 2012 (1) PLR 761; 2010 (4) PLR 780; (1971) 1 SCC 785; (2013) 7 SCC 476; (2009) 13 SCC 123 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       The said respondents had filed a claim petition after the death of Dr. Ashwini Sharma caused due to a motor accident.
       The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. A sum of Rs.4,50,000/-was awarded as compensation to the claimants being the dependants of deceased Dr. Ashwini Sharma; with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The Tribunal directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount as determined in the award to the claimants. The claimants, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and in particular deduction of compensation amount received by them from other source, preferred appeal before the High Court.
       The High Court, acceded to the contention of the claimants that the amount receivable by the dependents of the deceased under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 cannot be deducted from the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. On that finding, the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents
       Finding of the Court:
       Amount of compensation under Rule 5(1), Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is deductable from the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These matters have been placed before a three Judges’ Bench in terms of order dated 7th October, 2015. This order has not formulated any specific question to be answered by the larger Bench.

4. The leading appeal challenges the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated February 13, 2013 in FAO No.503/2012. That appeal was filed by the respondents (in appeal arising from SLP (Civil) No.14312/2013) against the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, in MACT Case No.136 dated 3rd November 2011. The said respondents had filed a claim petition after the death of Dr. Ashwini Sharma caused due to a motor accident on 24th October 2010 in front of Main gate of General Hospital at Jind. He succumbed to the injuries sustained in that accident. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. A sum of Rs.4,50,000/-was awarded as compensation to the claimants being the dependants of deceased Dr. Ashwini Sharma; with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The Tribunal directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount as determined in the award to the claimants. The claimants, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and in particular deduction of compensation amount received by them from other source, preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court, relying on the decision of Division Bench of the same High Court dated December 21, 2012, in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Purnima & Others, F.A.O No.1322 Of 2010 acceded to the contention of the claimants that the amount receivable by the dependents of the deceased under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to “Rules of 2006”) cannot be deducted from the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. On that finding, the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents in the following terms:-

“In view of the above, a sum of Rs.89,24,604/-(Rs.1,00,957/-15% thereof being Rs. 15,143 = Rs.85,814/-1/3rd thereof being Rs.28,605/-= Rs.57,209 x 12 =Rs.6,86,508/- x 13 = 89,24,604) towards loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium of the 1st appellant, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/-towards transportation expenses, in aggregate a sum of Rs.89,60,604/- with interest @ 7.5% for the enhanced portion of the compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization is awarded. The rate of interest applied and the mode of apportionment done by the Tribunal stands confirmed.”

5. The High Court has adopted the same reasoning to disallow deduction of compensation amount received by the claimants as per Rules of 2006 in the respective companion cases listed for analogous hearing. The sole contention advanced by the appellants -Insurance Companies, in these appeals, is that, the High Court has erred in law in disallowing the deduction of amount received by the concerned claimants under the Rules of 2006, from the quantum of compensation amount payable to the claimants under the Act of 1988.

6. As the High Court has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court in Purnima’s case (supra), it is apposite to first advert to that decision. That decision was rendered on a reference made to a larger Bench, on a question which has been canvassed by the appellants -Insurance Companies even in the present appeals, in view of the conflicting decisions of Single Judges of the same High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Saroj Devi, 2012 (1) PLR 761 and in the case of New India Assurance Co. vs. Smt. Santosh, 2010 (4) PLR 780 . The question considered by the Division Bench was: “whether the compensation received from the Government under the Haryana Compassionate As

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 745

IMPORTANT POINTAmount of compensation under Rule 5(1), Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is deductable from the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Cases Referred (12)

IMPORTANT POINT
Amount of compensation under Rule 5(1), Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is deductable from the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.