Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Sarla Devi and Others – Appellants
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8190 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 13979 of 2018]
Decided On : 26-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case facts, procedural history, and compensation assessment methods. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. conflicting arguments regarding deductibility of ex-gratia assistance versus compensation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. deduction of financial assistance mandated to prevent double recovery. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. parents ineligible for financial assistance when widow/children survive. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. ensuring just compensation for all dependents regardless of statutory deductions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. adjustment of total compensation to ensure individual dependent rights are protected. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants challenging the order dated 12.09.2017 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”) passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) in F.A.O. No. 3633 of 2015, wherein the High Court allowed the appeal, and modified the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) vide award dated 23.02.2015 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 117 of 2012, thereby granting a total compensation of Rs.7,70,400/- to the Appellants.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. On 23.07.2012, at about 9:00 PM, Sachin Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was travelling from Jhajjar to Rohtak on motorcycle bearing Registration No. HR-12H-2221, driving on the correct side of the road and at a moderate speed. When he reached near Pehlwan Dhaba on Rohtak-Jhajjar Road, near village Karontha, a Trolla bearing Registration No. RJ-14GC-8428, being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed from the opposite direction, came onto the wrong side of the road and collided with the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
4. The Appellants herein, the widow (Appellant No. 1), the minor daughter of the deceased (Appellant No. 2), the mother of the deceased (Appellant No. 3) and the father of the deceased (Appellant No. 4) filed a claim petition bearing MACT Case No. 117 of 2012, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Tribunal. The Appellants, contending that the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and was employed as a constable in the Haryana Police Department, Government of Haryana, drawing a salary of Rs. 18,000/- claimed Rs. 40,00,000/- as compensation at an interest of 18% per annum from the Respondents herein.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, held that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, which occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2, who was driving Trolla bearing Registration No. RJ-14GC-8428. Further, on the basis of the matriculation certificate, postmortem report, and the pleadings of the claimants, the Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased to be between 24 and 25 years. Upon perusal of the salary certificate of the deceased, the Tribunal determined his gross monthly salary to be Rs. 16,230/-. Relying upon the judgment in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation payable to Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 at Rs. 37,30,680/-along with interest @ 8% per annum, payable jointly and severally by the respondents, as the offending vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 1.
6. As regards Appellant No. 4, the Tribunal held that he was a retired government servant and was receiving pension, and thus could not be considered a dependent under the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the amount under the head of loss of dependency, was to be divided equally between the Appellant Nos. 1 to 3. The compensation assessed by the Tribunal is as under:
| Income | Rs. 16,230/- per month |
|
| |
Compensation for loss of dependency must not deduct pension or personal expenses; future prospects should be included, with the correct multiplier applied.
(1) Compensation – Deduction is permissible only to the extent that financial assistance overlaps with same pecuniary loss for which compensation is awarded under MVA, most notably loss of income.(2)....
Re-marriage of a widow does not negate her entitlement to compensation for loss due to her husband's death, as dependency includes emotional aspects beyond financial support.
Supreme Court had made it clear that loss of consortium cannot be only limited to spousal consortium but has also to be extended towards parental consortium and filial consortium.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
