JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.09.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.5,61,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, on account of death of Vasdev @ Vasudev in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 12.09.2006.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants–appellants contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is inadequate and calls for enhancement. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3–Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in law by failing to deduct the amount received by the dependants of the deceased under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. He further contends that in view of the settled legal position, the said amount is liable to be deducted while computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and consequently, the awarded compensation deserves to be reduced. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with his able assistance.

6. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent–Insurance Company regarding deduction of the amount received under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is concerned, this Court finds considerable merit in the said submission. This Court, in FAO No. 1558 of 2012, titled as “Balwan Singh And Others Vs Jagbir And Others”, decided on 16.10.2025, has categorically held that where the dependants of a deceased Government employee have already been extended compensatory benefits by the employer under the aforesaid Rules, they are not entitled to receive compensation to the same extent under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under:

“11. Coming to the contention of the claimants regarding the amount deducted from the total compensation on the account of the amount received by the dependents of the deceased under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, from the total compensation awarded. This contention of the claimants have no bearing in the eyes of law as it is settled principle of law that deductions can be made in the compensation to avoid double benefit to the claimants.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, 2016 (9) SCC 627 held that the dependents of the deceased already benefitted by the compensatory amount received from the employer under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, will not be entitled to the same amount under 1988 Act.

13. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:

“15. Be that as it may, the term compensation has not been defined in the Act of 1988. By interpretative process, it has been 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. Two cardinal principles run through the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 in the matter of determination of compensation. Firstly, the measure of compensation must be just and adequate; and secondly, no double benefit should be pa