The main legal point established in the judgment is that only those amounts payable to the claimant by reason of death or injury in an accident are liable to be deducted from the compensation, emphasizing the principle of balancing between losses and gains and the correlation between the amounts received and the accidental death.

G.P. MITTAL, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.1.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs. 23,24,314 was awarded in favor of the Appellants for the death of their bachelor son Mohd. Sarwar Ali Siddiqui, who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 5.8.2013. The short ground raised in the instant appeal is that sum of Rs. 5,00,000 which was received by the legal representatives of the deceased Mohd. Sarwar Ali Siddiqui on account of Group Accident Insurance Policy taken by the employer is not liable to be deducted from the compensation of Rs. 28,24,314 which was payable to the Appellants.

2. It is well settled that any amount payable on account of accidental death is liable to be deducted. The Claims Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Tukaram Jadhav and Others, (2014) 3 ALLMR 268, decided on 19.12.2013, wherein the judgment in Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 was discussed. The Claims Tribunal further relied on Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Suraj Bhan and another, (2011) ACJ 2294, which referred to the ratio in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others Etc. Etc., (2002) 6 SCC 281, to hold that the amount of compensation payable under Group Personal Accident Policy will be liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation payable.

3. This question was dealt with at great length by me in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.K. Jain and Ors., IV (2012) ACC 406 : MAC APP. 346/2010, decided on 2.7.2012. I had referred to the judgments in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. (supra) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (supra) and the principles to grant compensation against a tortfeasor as laid down in State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, (2003) 7 SCC 484.

4. In Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) (supra), the Supreme Court drew distinction between receipt of money under accident insurance and life insurance policies. It was held that in case of accident policies, the full value is deductible on the ground that there was no surety or even a reasonable probability that the insured would ever suffer an accident.

5. Similarly, in Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (supra), while referring to Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.), the Supreme Court held that if the receipts by the Claimants have some correlation with the accidental death, the sum shall be liable to be deducted. Paras 13 to 16 of the report in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.K. Jain and Ors., MAC APP. 346/2010, decided on 2.7.2012 are extracted hereunder:

"13. Section 168 of the Act enjoins a Claims Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation which is just and reasonable. It can neither be a source of profit nor should be a pittance. In State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, (2003) 7 SCC 484, the Supreme Court held as under:

"7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just' and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be 'just', compensation is a vexed question. There can be no gol