SC dismisses appeal challenging order whereby monetary benefit received by deceased-employee’s family under Motor Vehicles Act was reduced in terms of amount received under Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules
Justices B.V. Nagarathna & Augustine George Masih [05-02-2024]

Read Order: KRISHNA & ORS v. TEK CHAND & ORS [SC- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 5044/2019]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, February 19, 2024: The Supreme Court has recently clarified that the dependents cannot be doubly benefited on the death of the person in harness owing to a road traffic accident as opposed to those who are dependents of a deceased who dies owing to illness or any other reason under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2006.

The Petitioners’ counsel, before the Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih, placed reliance on the judgment in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. [LQ/SC/1998/973] to contend that the monetary benefit received by the family of the deceased-employee under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be reduced in terms of the amount received under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2006. It was presented before the Bench that the payment made by the Employer-Department to the family of the deceased who died in harness was owing to death of the deceased during service and had no nexus to his death in a road traffic accident.

Further, it was submitted that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the compensation awarded is on proving negligence on the part of the offending driver. Therefore, the High Court fell in error in deducting the amount of Rs 31, 37,665 from Rs 34,40,480 and thereby awarding a paltry sum of Rs.3.02 lakh to the petitioners herein.

On the contrary, placing reliance upon the judgment in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shashi Sharma  [LQ/SC/2016/1249], the Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that the very same provision which was considered by the High Court namely Rule 5 of the Rules, 2006 was interpreted in the context of awarding of compensation to the dependents of the deceased in a road traffic accident to hold that the said amount awarded by the Haryana Government to the family of the dependents of the deceased has to be deducted.

The petitioners had also relied upon the judgment of the 3-Judge Bench in Sebastiani Lakra and Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Limited [LQ/SC/2018/1338] to contend that the deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased.

The Bench was of the view that the three-judge Bench of the Top Court in the said case had clearly distinguished the reasoning in Shashi Sharma (supra). It was observed therein that it was a employers’ family benefit scheme which was totally different from the Rules under consideration in Shashi Sharma (Supra).

The Bench found that the observations in Sebastiani Lakra (supra) distinguishing the case of Shashi Sharma (supra) clearly applied to the case in hand. It was observed that the amount of Rs 31,37,665 was paid to the dependents of the deceased-employee who are the petitioners herein under the aforesaid Rules since the said Rule was by way of compassionate assistance owing to the sudden death of the employee in harness for any reason whatsoever including as a result of a road traffic accident.

“This is in order to compensate the loss of the bread earner of the family who dies in harness. In the case of a motor vehicle accidents, when negligence is proved, loss of dependency is compensated for the very same reason. In our view, there cannot be a duplication in payments or a windfall owing to a misfortune. In another words, on the death of the person in harness, owing to a road traffic accident the dependents of a deceased cannot be doubly benefited as opposed to those who are dependents of a deceased who dies owing to illness or any other reason under the Rules formulated by the Haryana Government”, the Bench clarified.

Thus, without finding any merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.