[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mankori Devi And Ors vs Sudhir And Ors on 11 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-2174-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.12.2025
Mankori Devi and others ....Appellants
V/s
Sudhir and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3-insurance co.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
Claimants, who are the widow, three minor sons and the mother
of deceased Satbir Singh, who expired in a motor vehicular accident which
took place on 02.01.2016, seek enhancement in compensation awarded to
them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short 'the
MACT') vide award dated 27.08.2018 passed in a claim petition instituted
by them under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the
MV Act').
3. Satbir Singh is stated to have expired in a motor vehicular
accident which took place on 02.01.2016, when he is alleged to have been
struck by a motorcycle bearing Regn. No.HR-99-WX(Temp)-6575
(hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"), which was being driven
by respondent No.1 (Satbir) at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner. It was averred that accident had taken place at CHC Khol, when
Satbir Singh was crossing the road. It was averred that Satbir Singh was
initially taken to CHC, Khol and later on shifted to Pushpanjali Hospital and
was thereafter taken to Paras Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.
FIR No.2 dated 04.01.2016 was registered at Police Station Khol, District
1 of 7
FAO-2174-2019 (O&M) -2-
Rewari under Sections 279, 304A IPC.
4. Satbir Singh was stated to be 48 years old at the time of the
accident and was serving in CHC Khol. His salary was stated to be
Rs.28,000/- per month and the appellants-claimants were fully dependent on
his income. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was claimed as
compensation.
5. The claim petition was opposed by the respondents. In the
written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the
offending vehicle), the factum of the accident was denied.
6. The insurance company raised its usual defences in the written
statement and denied the factum of the accident.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
"1. Whether the accident in question had taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of motorcycle bearing Regn. No.HR-99-WX(Temp)-
6575 by respondent No.1 causing death of Satbir Singh, as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the
claimants are entitled to and from whom?OPP
3. Whether the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any
compensation, in view of the breach of terms and conditions of the policy
of insurance?OPR
4. Relief."
8. Parties led their respective evidence.
9. Under issue No.1, the MACT found that the accident as a result
of which, Satbir Singh had expired, had taken place on account of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. As regards
quantum of compensation, the age of the deceased was assessed as 48 years.
His gross salary was assessed as Rs.27,599/- per month. Accordingly,
compensation of Rs.41,97,804/- was assessed by the MACT. The legal heirs
of the deceased were stated to be getting compassionate financial assistance
2 of 7
FAO-2174-2019 (O&M) -3-
under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to
the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. As a
result, a sum of Rs.20,64,468/- was deducted from Rs.41,97,804/-. As such,
the amount was assessed as Rs.21,33,336/-. The following compensation
was awarded:-
Sr. No. Heads of Claim
1. Age of the deceased 48 years
2. Income of the deceased Rs.27599/- per month
3. Future prospects @ 30% Rs.8279/- per month
(Total Income Rs.35,878/-)
4. After deducting 1/4 Rs.26,909/- per month
of the income as personal Rs.3,22,908/- per annum
expenses of the deceased
(Rs.8969.5/-)
5. After applying Multiplier Rs.3,22,908 x 13
of '13' =Rs.41,97,804/-
6. Dependency after Rs.41,97,804 - Rs.20,64,468
deduction of financial = Rs.21,33,336/-
assistance of
Rs.20,64,468/-
7. Expenses incurred on Rs.50,000 +15146+2100 =
treatment Rs.67,246/-
8. Loss of consortium Rs.40000/-
9. Funeral Expenses Rs.15000/-
10. Loss of Estate Rs.15000/-
10. Total Compensation Rs.22,70,582/-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount of
Rs.20,64,468/- granted under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the
Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 to the legal
heirs of the deceased was erroneously deducted. It has been submitted that
the compensation awarded on account of funeral expenses, loss of estate and
consortium is not in accordance with the ratio of law laid by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017)16 SCC 680, Smt. Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121
and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias
3 of 7
FAO-2174-2019 (O&M) -4-
Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130.
12. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.-3-
insurance company has submitted that deduction of the amount granted as
financial assistance under 2006 Rules was rightly done in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Shashi Sharma and others, 2016 ACJ 2723. In so
far as the funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium is concerned,
learned counsel fairly concedes that the same shall have to be enhanced in
terms of the judgments of the Apex Court, referred to in the preceding
paragraph.
13. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that in so far as the
deduction on account of financial assistance is concerned, the same was
liable to be made as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shashi
Sharma and others vs. Shashi Sharma and others (supra);
21. The claimants are legitimately entitled to claim for the loss of "pay
and wages" of the deceased Government employee against the tortfeasor
or Insurance Company, as the case may be, covered by the first part of
Rule 5 under the Act of 1988. The claimants or dependents of the
deceased Government employee (employed by State of Haryana),
however, cannot set up a claim for the same subject falling under the
first part of Rule 5 - "pay and allowances", which are receivable by them
from employer (State) under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 2006. In that, if
the deceased employee was to survive the motor accident injury, would
have remained in employment and earned his regular pay and
allowances. Any other interpretation of the said Rules would inevitably
result in double payment towards the same head of loss of "pay and
wages" of the deceased Government employee entailing in grant of
bonanza, largesse or source of profit to the dependants / claimants.
Somewhat similar situation has been spelt out in Section 167 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus:
"167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain
4 of 7
FAO-2174-2019 (O&M) -5-
cases.--- Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death
of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for
compensation under this Act and also under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to
compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter
X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not
under both." (emphasis supplied)
22. Indeed, similar statutory exclusion of claim receivable under
the Rules of 2006 is absent. That, however, does not mean that the
Claims Tribunal should remain oblivious to the fact that the claim
towards loss of Pay and wages of the deceased has already been or will
be compensated by the employer in the form of ex-gratia financial
assistance on compassionate grounds under Rule 5 (1). The Claims
Tribunal has to adjudicate the claim and determine the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just. The amount receivable by
the dependants / claimants towards the head of pay and allowances in
the form of ex-gratia financial assistance, therefore, cannot be paid for
the second time to the claimants. True it is, that the Rules of 2006 would
come into play if the Government employee dies in harness even due to
natural death. At the same time, the Rules of 2006 do not expressly
enable the dependents of the deceased Government employee to claim
similar amount from the tortfeasor or Insurance Company because of
the accidental death of the deceased Government employee. The
harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable
under the Act of 1988, therefore, is to exclude the amount received or
receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee
under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent
to "pay and other allowances" that was last drawn by the deceased
Government employee in the normal course. This is not to say that the
amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased
Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total
entitlement under the head of "loss of income". So far as the claim
towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the
deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be
pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988. For, it is not
covered by the Rules of 2006. Similarly, other benefits extended to the
dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule
(2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance,
Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed
to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the
deceased Government employee, applying the principle expounded in
5 of 7
FAO-2174-2019 (O&M) -6-
Helen C.Rebello and Patricia Jean Mahajan's cases (supra).
23. A Priori, appellants must succeed only to the extent of
amount receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government
employee in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Rules 2006, towards financial
assistance equivalent to the loss of pay and wages of the deceased
employee for the period specified."
14. As regards the compensation awarded on account of other
heads, the income of the deceased, the age of the deceased, future prospects
were rightly assessed by the MACT. Only the funeral expenses, loss of
estate and filial consortium deserve to be enhanced in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra). Accordingly, the compensation is assessed as under, keeping in
mind the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-
Sr. Heads of Claim Awarded by the Enhanced
No. MACT Compensation
1. Age of the deceased 48 years No change
2. Income of the deceased Rs.27599/- per No change
month
3. Future prospects @ 30% Rs.8279/- per No change
month
(Total Income
Rs.35,878/-)
4. After deducting 1/4 Rs.26,909/- per No change
of the income as month
personal expenses of the Rs.3,22,908/-
deceased (Rs.8969.5/-) per annum
5. After applying Multiplier Rs.3,22,908 x 13 No change
of '13' =Rs.41,97,804/-
6. Deduction of financial Rs.21,33,336/- Rs.21,33,336/-
assistance of (no change)
Rs.20,64,468/-
7. Expenses incurred on Rs.50,000 No Change
treatment +15146+2100 =
Rs.67,246/-
8. Loss of consortium Rs.40000/- Rs.2,42,000/-
(Rs.48400/- x 5)
9. Funeral Expenses Rs.15000/- Rs.18150/-
10. Loss of Estate Rs.15000/- Rs.18150/-
Total Compensation Rs.22,70,582/- Rs.24,11,636/-
15. The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.24,11,636/-.
6 of 7
FAO-2174-2019 (O&M) -7-
After deducting a sum of Rs.22,70,582/- as assessed by the MACT, the
balance compensation comes to Rs.1,41,054/- This amount would be
payable in addition to the amount assessed by the learned MACT along with
interest @ 7.5% annually. The disbursal and liability to pay the same would
be as per the award.
16. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
December 11, 2025
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
