[2026:RJ-JD:3377]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 718/2012 Smt.Bhanwari Devi And Ors.

----Appellant Versus Raj Kumar @ Raju And Ors.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

14/01/2026

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Didwana, District Nagaur, vide judgment dated 01.07.2011 in MAC Case No. 1/2009, whereby a sum of Rs.27,30,098/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition was granted.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 26.09.2008, the deceased Mr. Nima Ram, who was serving as a Constable in Rajasthan Armed Core [R.A.C.] was hit by a vehicle truck. He sustained several injuries and eventually succumbed to them. A claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal by the dependents of deceased Mr. Nima Ram.

3. The Tribunal held respondents jointly and severally liable and awarded a sum of Rs.27,30,098/- in favour of the claimants. While deciding the issue regarding entitlement of compensation, the learned Tribunal observed that compassionate employment was granted to claimant no.1 and therefore, ordered to deduct the amount of Rs.18,22,702 from the total amount of Rs,45,52,800/-. Challenging the said deduction under head of loss of income on ground of compassionate appointment, present appeal has been preferred.

Submission by Parties

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the amount awarded cannot be reduced on the ground that claimant has received compassionate employment. He submitted that the income from compassionate employment by rendering service cannot be equated to statutory compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. By placing reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhaben, (2017) 13 SCC 547, the counsel for appellants contented that salary received cannot be deducted from the total compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment/award passed by the Tribunal and stated that it is reasoned and warrants no modification from this Court. Learned counsel also argued that the salary received by claimant on account of compassionate appointment is required to be set off and deducted while determining the quantum of compensation payable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the said benefit flows from the death of the deceased and is in the nature of pecuniary advantage.

Analysis and Reasoning

7. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties at length and perused the documents on record.

8. Income received by virtue of compassionate appointment and the compensation awarded under the Act are distinct and therefore former is not liable to be deducted from the latter. Hence, financial benefit of compassionate employment is not liable to be deducted from the quantum of compensation awarded under the act. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhaben, (2017) 13 SCC 547 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the source from which compensation on account of accident is claimed and the source proffering compassionate employment are wholly distinct and unrelated entities, bearing no correlation whatsoever. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein:

“22. In the present cases, the claimants were offered compassionate employment. The claimants were not offered any sum of money equal to the income of the deceased. In fact, they were not offered any sum of money at all. They were offered employment and the money they receive in the form of their salary, would be earned from such employment. The loss of income in such cases cannot be said to be set off because the claimants would be earning their living. Therefore, we are of the view that the amount earned by the claimants from compassionate appointments cannot be ded