The main legal point established in the judgment is that only payments co-related to the death of the deceased in a motor accident can be deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Judgment

Union of India and its functionaries are in appeal against the award dated 29th March, 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu in Claim file No.534/C titled Usha Rani and others v. Suresh Chand and others, whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter “the claimants”) have been held entitled to compensation of Rs. 44,79,892/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of one Sh. Avtar Singh.

2. The impugned award has been primarily assailed on quantum. It is submitted that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive. The appellants have also made a feeble attempt to even dispute the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. It is claimed that given the evidence on record, it had fairly come out that the accident involving the offending vehicle had occurred due to bad road conditions and not because of any negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle. This ground, however, is not pressed before me by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellants. His whole impetus was on the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. Relying upon few judgments of the Supreme Court, learned ASGI submits that several payments received by the claimants from the appellants on account of death of Hav. Avtar Singh, particularly, payment relating to ex-gratia, were liable to be deducted from the loss of income/dependency to the claimants. The Tribunal having failed to deduct the payments made on account of ex-gratia to the claimants has, thus, conferred double benefit on the claimants.

3. Per contra, Mr. R.K.Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (claimants), placing reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sebastiani Lakra and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and another, AIR 2018 SC 5034, urges that the payments and service benefits including ex-gratia payment made to the dependents/legal heirs of the deceased employee, cannot be deducted from computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, unless such payment/payments have co-relation with the motor accident. Learned counsel argues that all these payments, to which reference has been made by the appellants in the memo of appeal, are otherwise payable to the dependents of the deceased employee irrespective of the cause of death. He further submits that no such claim was made by the appellants before the Tribunal nor any policy, statutory or otherwise pertaining to the payment of ex-gratia relief, was brought on record by the appellant and it is because of this reason, the Tribunal did not frame any specific issue in this regard.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that the legal position on the point is not absolutely free from ambiguities. There are two, seemingly, contradictory Three-Judge Bench judgments, one rendered in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Shashi Sharma and others, 2016 (9) SCC 627 and the other in the case of Sebastiani Lakra (supra). In the later Three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Sebastiani Lakra, the judgment rendered in the case of Shashi Sharma (supra) has been explained and distinguished. In Shashi Sharma’s case, a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while hearing a reference also considered incidental question as to whether there was any conflict of opinion between the Coordinate Two-Judge Benches of this Court; in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Smt.Kanta Aggarwal, 2008(11) SCC 366 on one hand, and that of Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90 and United India Insurance Company v. Petricia Jean Mahajan, 2002(6) SCC 281 on the other hand. The Supreme Court after adverting to the entire case law on the subject in paragraph No.16 concluded thus:-

“16. The principle discernable from th exposition in Helen C. Rebello’s