2026 INSC 188 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2506-2507 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.26979-80 of 2025)

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS KANIKA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL J., Signature Not Verified Leave Granted.

RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2026.02.24 Reason:

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has filed these appeals questioning the correctness of final judgments and orders dated 15^th October 2024¹ passed in CM NO.16984 of 2024 and 17^th January 2023² passed in CM No.13449 of 2021, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The order dated 15^th October 2024 was an order passed in Review of the latter. The order dated 17^th January 2023 was a consequence of a clarification having been sought of order dated 18^th September 2019 passed by the High Court in FAO No.2017 of

2011³

3. The facts as necessary for disposal of the appeal are: On 2^nd November 2009, a motorcycle being driven by Ravinder Kumar, carrying two pillion riders, Smt. Hom Devi and Kanika respondent no.1 herein collided with a jeep, on account of the latter’s rash and negligent driving. Smt. Hom Devi passed away and the other two people on the motorcycle received multiple injuries. The deceased was employed as MPHW in PHC Chhara at Village Daboda, drawing a salary of Rs. 21805 per month. Respondent no.1 herein along with her two brothers, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

1 Order in Review

2 Clarification Order

3 Main Order

Rohtak which was allowed in terms of order dated 9^th October 2010. The amount awarded was Rs.8,80,000/- @7.5% interest per annum, to be borne by respondents, jointly and severally.

4. The claimants-respondents approached the High Court seeking enhancement thereof. The Court allowed the prayer for enhancement but held that the amount received by the family as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006⁴, had to be deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded to them. As such, the total compensation awarded by the High Court in terms of the Main Order was Rs. 29,09,240/- while holding that the amount received by the claimant-respondents as part of compensation under the 2006 Rules and any part of the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, would be deducted. The claimant-respondents filed an application for clarification in so far as the deduction of the amount received as per the 2006 Rules was ordered. By way of the Clarification Order, the position of the Main Order appears to have been reversed. It was held:

“ Considering the submissions made, as noted above, the order dated 18.09.2019 is hereby modified to the extent that the claimants would also

4 2006 Rules

be entitled to pension, therefore the entire amount of compensation as received from the Government under the Scheme of 2006 , will not be deductible from the amount payable. In this way, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 25,83,949/-…”

The Order in Review records that the application was withdrawn seeking liberty to challenge the same.

5. The matter now stands before us. The short question to be decided is whether the amount in terms of the 2006 Rules has to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal or not?

6. We find that the High Court, in its Main Order, relied on the judgment of this Court in Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma⁵ to hold the opposite to what it did in the Clarification Order. The said judgment holds the field in so far as the 2006 Rules and deductions of the amounts awarded thereunder is concerned.

6.1 A three judge bench in the above judgment dealt with a claim for compensation after a fatal motor acci- dent. The deceased was a Government employee, and his

5 (2016) 9 SCC 627

family filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 19886 against the insurer. At the same time, the dependents were entitled to receive financial assistance under