Ex gratia payments cannot be deducted from compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act; the State retains liability for accidents involving requisitioned vehicles.

1. These two appeals arising out of judgment and award dated 8.3.2016 passed by the learned District Judge cum Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Court No. 1, Giridih in Title (MV) Claim Case No. 46 of 2009.

2. MA No. 639 of 2016:

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while assailing the impugned award has submitted that the State was debarred from filing written statement, but the insurance company in its written statement had specifically taken a plea that the ex gratia amount of Rs.10,00,000 was required to be adjusted against the compensation amount. He submits that even when the vehicle was requisitioned for the purposes of election, the liability of the insurance company continued even after the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi , 2008 ACJ 705 SC. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to distinguish the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in Deepa Devi (supra).

3. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma , 2016 ACJ 2723 SC, to submit that in the said case ex gratia payment was directed to be adjusted. The learned counsel has also submitted that the claimants are entitled to just compensation and there can be no double benefit to the claimants, once through the claim under Motor Vehicles Act and further through the ex gratia payment. The learned counsel further submitted that in spite of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepa Devi (supra), the liability is on the insurance company.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company has opposed the prayer of the State and submitted that the point involved in the present case is squarely covered by the case of Deepa Devi (supra) and no distinguishing point has been raised by the learned counsel for the State to fasten the liability upon the insurance company. She has submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered every aspect of the matter and has consequently fastened the liability upon the State. The State did not even file written statement before the learned Tribunal denying its liability.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Election Commission of India has submitted that, even though the management, control, and possession of the vehicle during the election were with the officers of the State for the purposes of conducting the election, the owner of the vehicle is entitled to rent.

However, the records reveal that the Election Commission of India did not file any written statement before the court, and there was no contest from their side.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has vehemently opposed the prayer of the State seeking adjustment of ex gratia payment and has submitted that the ex gratia payment is to be made uniformly to the persons who are on election duty and they suffer death while on election duty. He submits that the payment is made irrespective of the fact whether the death occurs out of the accident by motor vehicle. The learned counsel submits that the ex gratia payment cannot be adjusted against the compensation arising out of motor vehicle accident and this aspect of the matter has been rightly considered by the learned Tribunal and the argument of adjustment has been rejected.

7. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of Urmila Devi v. Superintendent of Police , 2020 (2) JBCJ 429, to submit that in the said case, it has been h