Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 5590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J
Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Neelam Rani and others – Respondent
FAO-8656-2015 (O&M) | FAO-2129-2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. D. K. Tuteja, Mr. G. S. Sarao, Mr. Kamal Kumar Mor
The court emphasizes that compensation awarded under motor vehicle accident claims should not include amounts received through government assistance schemes, to prevent double recovery.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation awarded by the Tribunal challenged by the Insurance Company contending that it is excessive - Determination of compensation must consider amounts already received under a government policy to avoid double recovery. (Paras 1-3, 10, 13-15)
(B) Appeal - Quantum of Compensation - Court emphasizes that duplicate benefits under the Motor Vehicles Act and financial assistance schemes must be avoided. (Paras 12, 14-15)
Facts of the case:
This appeal is initiated by an Insurance company against the compensation awarded for a fatal accident resulting in the death of a government employee. Compensation of Rs.57.70 lakhs was under challenge based on the argument that amounts received under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Policy should be deducted.
Findings of Court:
The learned Tribunal's decision increases transparency on compensation assessment; compensation must exclude amounts received under the ex gratia scheme to prevent double recovery.
Issues: The primary issue is the validity of deducting the amount received by claimants under a government assistance scheme from the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relies on past judgments to reinforce the principle that ex gratia amounts received cannot be counted twice; the two forms of compensation relate to separate legal bases.
Result: The appeal is allowed; compensation reassessed and detailed instructions for payment provided to the Tribunal. (Paras 16-20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against compensation awarded (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the assessment of compensation (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. assessment of aggregate compensation and implications of duplicate benefits (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal reasoning on compensation calculation (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. assessment of revised compensation and direct actions for disbursement (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance company against the Award dated 04.11.2015 passed in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant-Insurance company was held liable with the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs.57,70,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
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 and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company contends that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side and deserves to be modified. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the compensation awarded to the claimants includes the amount which they are receiving under the Haryana Government Compassionate Assistance Policy, 2006 as salary, therefore, the said amount is deserved to be deducted from the compensation as per the settled law.
Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be dismissed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants/respondents, however, vehemently argues that the compensation awarded is on lower side and claimants/respondents have preferred FAO-2129-2016, titled as Neelam Devi and another Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to claimants/respondents. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.
8. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-
“12. To prove the monthly income of deceased Kuldeep Singh, Neelam petitioner herself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and also examined PW4 Naresh Kumar, who deposed the monthly salary of deceased Kuldeep Singh as Rs.35,554/- per month. He has also placed on record F-16 form and service book of deceased Kuldeep as Exhibit P17 to Exhibit P25. No doubt, the deceased Kuldeep was receiving House Rent Allowance to the tune of Rs.1574/- and after his death, the petitioner Neelam who is also a government employee is also receiving House Rent Allowance the same should be deducted in assessing the total salary, Reliance can be placed on the case titled Bhakra Beas Management Board Versus Kanta Aggarwal 2008(4) ACC 764.
13. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that since the petitioners are getting last drawn pay of deceased Kuldeep under Haryana Government Compassionate Assistance Policy, so, as per the judgment of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Saroj Devi and others 2013 ACC 122 and Reliance General Insurance Company Versus Maya Devi and others 2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 859, the formula adopted by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court should be applied. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 does not hold much force for a simple reason that in the case titled Nirmala Devi Versus Narender Pal 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 21, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under :-
"However, we find that the MACT has gone wrong in depriving the appellants of the use of multiplier of 11 in view of latest pronouncement of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in FAO No. 1
