IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:- 04.11.2025 Pronounced on:- 14.11.2025 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ......Appellant vs.

SUNITA AND OTHERS ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5 and 6.

****

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 09.01.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’) on the ground that amount of compensation awarded under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (in short ‘2006 Rules’) was not deducted by learned Tribunal while calculating the compensation awarded to claimants.

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.

S UBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIE S

3. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deducting only 50% of the financial assistance received by the claimants under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (in short ‘2006 Rules’). He further contends that the entire amount of financial assistance ought to have been deducted while computing the compensation payable under the 1988 Act. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma and Others, (2016) 9 SCC 627

4. Learned counsel further argues that the computation of compensation by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with the settled principles of law. On these grounds, it is urged that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned award be suitably modified.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–claimants vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that the compensation awarded under the 1988 Act cannot be reduced by deducting the amount received under the 2006 Rules, as both have distinct purposes and objects. It is contended that the financial assistance under the 2006 Rules is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate relief to the dependents of a deceased government employee who dies in harness, whereas compensation under the 1988 Act is granted to compensate for the death caused by a motor accident. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sebastian Lakra v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2019) 17 SCC 465

6. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He points out that the claimants have already filed a separate appeal, being FAO-4186-2019, titled as “Sunita and others Vs. Ramphal and others”, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and seeking its enhancement. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed and that the compensation be suitably enhanced in accordance with the latest law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

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

8. The issue to be decided by this Court in the present appeal is as to whether the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be reduced by deducting the amount received under the 2006 Rules.

9. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the question as to whether compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to be reduced by the amoun