Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation VS Danish Khan...
Checking relevance for National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Rekhaben...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Rekhaben - 2017 4 Supreme 222 : The insurance company''''s liability to compensate for losses arising from a motor accident cannot be reduced by the amount received by claimants from a compassionate appointment offered by a non-tortfeasor (such as the deceased''''s employer). The court held that earnings from compassionate employment, which are earned through labor or service, are not deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because the source of compensation (the insurer) and the source of the employment benefit (the employer) are separate and unrelated. Therefore, an insurance company cannot claim that a compassionate appointment constitutes a bar to full compensation.Checking relevance for CANARA BANK VS M. MAHESH KUMAR...
CANARA BANK VS M. MAHESH KUMAR - 2015 4 Supreme 535 : The insurance company''''s sanction of a compassionate amount does not bar the claim for compassionate appointment. The court held that the payment of family pension or terminal benefits, including ex-gratia payments, is of no consequence when considering a claim for compassionate appointment. In particular, the court emphasized in Para 15 that ''''the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance,'''' and that such benefits do not negate the eligibility for compassionate appointment. This principle was reinforced by reference to Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493, where the Supreme Court rejected the argument that family benefit schemes preclude compassionate appointments, stating that such benefits cannot replace the security provided by employment. Therefore, even if an insurance company or employer has sanctioned a compassionate or ex-gratia amount, it does not constitute a legal bar to seeking or obtaining a compassionate appointment.Checking relevance for MUKESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA...
MUKESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2022 3 Supreme 311 : The insurance company''''s sanction of a compassionate amount does not bar eligibility for compassionate appointment. The court held that the exclusion of children born from a second marriage (including those from a void marriage deemed legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act) from compassionate appointments on the ground of descent or marital status violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to prevent destitution and ensure dignity of the family of a deceased employee. Once a child is legally recognized as legitimate by law, excluding them from compassionate appointment merely because they are a child of a second wife is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. Therefore, the mere sanction of a compassionate amount by an insurance company does not preclude the claimant from being considered for compassionate appointment under the scheme.Checking relevance for Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Shashi Sharma...
Checking relevance for Oriental Insurance Company VS Saroj Devi...
Oriental Insurance Company VS Saroj Devi - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 2188 : The insurance company''''s liability to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, is independent of the financial assistance received under the State Compassionate Assistance Policy. The payment of compassionate assistance does not bar or reduce the insurance company''''s statutory and contractual liability to pay compensation as assessed by the tribunal, based on principles laid down in Sarla Verma''''s case. The compassionate assistance is a welfare benefit arising from the employer-employee relationship and is not connected to the accident, and thus cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Supreme Court has held that the death of a person should not result in a bonanza for dependents, but this does not justify allowing insurance companies to escape liability simply because the family receives compassionate assistance. The two forms of benefit are distinct in nature and origin—compensation is based on contract of indemnity, while compassionate assistance is a service benefit. Therefore, the insurance company cannot claim that the receipt of compassionate assistance is a bar to its liability to pay compensation.Checking relevance for S. Divya VS P. Ramalingeswar Rao...
S. Divya VS P. Ramalingeswar Rao - Orissa (2021) : The insurance company''''s payment of a compassionate amount (such as ex gratia financial assistance under government rules) is not a bar to claiming full compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court has held that such financial assistance, if provided by the employer (not the tortfeasor), is not deductible from the compensation awarded by the insurer. This is because the compassionate assistance is not a pecuniary advantage arising from the accident itself, but rather a benefit tied to employment conditions. The Court emphasized that the source of compensation (tortfeasor/insurer) and the source of compassionate assistance (employer) are separate, and the claimant''''s earnings from compassionate employment are not liable to be deducted from the compensation amount. This principle was reaffirmed in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma (2016), where the Court ruled that only financial assistance equivalent to lost income (like ex gratia payments) may be considered for deduction, not earnings from employment.
