Sarla Devi vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 575
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………… OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 13979 OF 2018)
SARLA DEVI & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants
challenging the order dated 12.09.2017 (hereinafter referred to
Signature Not Verified
as “ impugned order ”) passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.05.27
17:04:05 IST
Reason:
Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “ the High
1
Court ”) in F.A.O. No. 3633 of 2015, wherein the High Court
allowed the appeal, and modified the compensation amount
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak
Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as “ ”) vide award dated
23.02.2015 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 117 of 2012, thereby granting
a total compensation of Rs.7,70,400/- to the Appellants.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. On 23.07.2012, at about 9:00 PM, Sachin Kumar
(hereinafter referred to as “ deceased” ) was travelling from
Jhajjar to Rohtak on motorcycle bearing Registration No. HR-
12H-2221, driving on the correct side of the road and at a
moderate speed. When he reached near Pehlwan Dhaba on
Rohtak-Jhajjar Road, near village Karontha, a Trolla bearing
Registration No. RJ-14GC-8428, being driven rashly and
negligently at a high speed from the opposite direction, came
onto the wrong side of the road and collided with the motorcycle.
Due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and
died on the spot.
2
4. The Appellants herein, the widow (Appellant No. 1), the
minor daughter of the deceased (Appellant No. 2), the mother of
the deceased (Appellant No. 3) and the father of the deceased
(Appellant No. 4) filed a claim petition bearing MACT Case No.
117 of 2012, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act” ) before the Tribunal. The
Appellants, contending that the deceased was 25 years of age at
the time of accident and was employed as a constable in the
Haryana Police Department, Government of Haryana, drawing
a salary of ₹ 18,000/-, claimed ₹ 40,00,000/- as compensation
at an interest of 18% per annum from the Respondents herein.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence
adduced by the parties, held that the deceased had died due to
the injuries sustained in the accident, which occurred on
account of the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2,
who was driving Trolla bearing Registration No. RJ-14GC-8428.
Further, on the basis of the matriculation certificate,
postmortem report, and the pleadings of the claimants, the
Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased to be between 24 and
3
25 years. Upon perusal of the salary certificate of the deceased,
the Tribunal determined his gross monthly salary to be
₹ 16,230/-. Relying upon the judgment in Sarla Verma and
Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported
in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal assessed the total
compensation payable to Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 at ₹ 37,30,680/-
along with interest @ 8% per annum, payable jointly and
severally by the respondents, as the offending vehicle was duly
insured with Respondent No. 1.
6. As regards Appellant No.4, the Tribunal held that he was
a retired government servant and was receiving pension, and
thus could not be considered a dependent under the Act.
Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the amount under the
head of loss of dependency, was to be divided equally between
the Appellant Nos. 1 to 3. The compensation assessed by the
Tribunal is as under:
Income ₹ 16,230/- per month
50% addition towards future
prospects
₹ 16,230 + ₹ 8,115 =
₹ 24,345/-
4
⅓ rd deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased
₹ 24,345 - ₹ 8115 =
₹ 16,230/-
Annual Income after Multiplier of
18 is applied
₹ 16,230 x 12 x 18
= ₹ 35,05,680/-
Loss of Consortium ₹ 1,00,00/-
Loss of Love & Affection for
Appellant No.2/daughter
₹ 50,000/-
Loss of Love & Affection for the
Appellant No.1/widow and for
Appellant No. 3/mother
₹ 50,000/-
Funeral Expenses ₹ 25,000/-
₹
Total Compensation awarded 37,30,680/-
7. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal,
Respondent No. 1/Insurer preferred an appeal being FAO No.
3633 of 2015 (O&M) before the High Court. The High Court,
after considering the submissions advanced by the parties, held
that the Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the
deceased and correctly applied the relevant factors for
computation of compensation, but had failed to deduct
₹ 9,490/- per annum towards the income tax liability of the
deceased. While affirming the compensation awarded under the
various heads, the High Court enhanced the compensation
5
payable under the head of loss of love and affection to the
Appellant No. 2 (daughter) from ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The
High Court further modified the award of ₹ 50,000/- granted by
the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection to both the
Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 (wife and mother respectively), by
restricting the same exclusively in favour of the Appellant No. 3
(mother). In addition thereto, the High Court also awarded a
sum of ₹ 25,000/- towards loss of estate. Consequently, the
total compensation payable to the claimants was determined at
₹ 36,91,800/-.
8. Furthermore, the High Court by placing reliance on the
judgment passed by this Court in Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma and Others, reported in
(2016) 9 SCC 627 , held that any benefit derived by the family
members of the deceased employee from the Haryana
Government under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to
the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as “the 2006 Rules” ), shall be deducted
from the compensation assessed under the Act. The High Court
6
assessed the amount payable as financial assistance under the
2006 Rules at ₹ 29,21,400/- ( ₹ 16,230 x 12 months x 15 years)
and consequently, reduced the amount of compensation
₹
payable under the Act to 7,70,400/-. The compensation
awarded by the High Court is as follows:
Monthly Income with 50%
Future Prospects
₹ 16,230/- + ₹ 8,115/-
₹
= 24,345/-
Annual Income ₹ 24,345/- x 12 =
₹
2,92,140/- Per Annum
Income Tax Liability ₹ 9,490/-
Annual Income after applying
multiplier of 18
₹ 33,91,800/-
Loss of Consortium ₹ 1,00,000/-
Loss of Love & Affection for
Appellant No.2/daughter
₹
1,00,000/-
Loss of Love & Affection for
Appellant No. 3/mother
₹
50,000/-
Funeral Expenses ₹ 25,000/-
Loss of Estate ₹ 25,000/-
Total Compensation ₹ 36,91,800/-
Final Compensation after set-off
of financial assistance payable
under the 2006 Rules
₹ 36,91,800 –
₹ 29,21,400/- =
₹ 7,70,400/-
7
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
9. Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Appellants, contended that the High Court
failed to appreciate that the 2006 Rules were framed as a
welfare legislation to provide financial and social security to the
dependents of deceased government employees and no benefit
arising therefrom could have been extended to the Respondent
No.1/Insurer by way of deduction from compensation awarded
under the Act. It was further contended that the High Court
erred in relying upon the judgment in Shashi Sharma (supra)
without considering the distinct facts and circumstances of the
present case, thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice. The
High Court also failed to consider that the deceased was the sole
breadwinner and was survived by his young widow, minor
daughter and a dependent mother, who had no independent
source of income, and the deduction from the compensation
caused serious prejudice and financial hardship to the
Appellants.
8
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants has further
submitted that so far as the compensation to the mother is
concerned, the High Court has erringly neglected the fact that
she is not entitled to any financial assistance under the 2006
Rules and consequently, the mother’s entitlement of
compensation under the head of loss of dependency cannot be
settled towards the amount payable as financial assistance to
the eligible family members under the 2006 Rules.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1
11. Mr. Joy Basu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company, submitted that the
quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of
dependency is fully covered by the financial assistance awarded
by the State Government under the 2006 Rules for loss of
income and hence, the High Court has rightly relied on Shashi
Sharma (supra), while reducing the financial assistance
payable under the 2006 Rules from the compensation amount
calculated towards loss of income. The learned Senior Counsel
further argued that the deceased joined the service on
9
03.08.2007 under a non-pensionable service regime and
therefore, the documents relied upon by the Appellants are
neither relevant nor applicable to the present case.
ANALYSIS
12. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by both
sides and the material available on record, the controversy
arising in the present appeal may be crystallised into the
following three issues:
a. Whether the financial assistance payable under the
2006 Rules is liable to be deducted from the
compensation amount assessed under the Act to prevent
duality of loss of income?
b. Whether the financial assistance payable to the eligible
family members under the 2006 Rules will affect the
mother’s entitlement under the Act?
c. What would be the final quantum of compensation to be
awarded under the Act?
10
Findings on Issue A
13. The 2006 Rules were enacted with the object of providing
ex-gratia financial assistance to the dependents of a deceased
or missing government employee, so as to ensure immediate
socio-economic support to the bereaved family. The 2006 Rules
seek to protect the family from sudden financial hardship and
destitution arising out of the untimely loss of the sole bread-
earner of the household. The 2006 Rules comprehensively
provide for the category of persons entitled to such financial
assistance, the procedure for making a claim, as well as the
quantum and duration of the assistance payable to the family
members of the deceased employee. Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules
specifically provides that the family of the deceased employee
shall be entitled to financial assistance equivalent to the last
drawn salary of the deceased employee. The Rule further
classifies the period for which such assistance is payable on the
basis of the age of the deceased employee at the time of death,
namely: (i) 15 years where the deceased employee was below 35
years of age; (ii) 12 years where the deceased employee was
11
between 35 and 48 years of age; and (iii) 7 years where the
deceased employee was above 48 years of age.
14. In the present case, the deceased was 25 years of age at
the time of his death and, therefore, in terms of Rule 5(1) of the
2006 Rules, the eligible family members of the deceased are
entitled to financial assistance equivalent to the last drawn
salary of the deceased, i.e., ₹ 16,230/- per month, for a period
of 15 years. The amount of financial assistance payable to the
eligible family members has been correctly calculated by the
High Court in accordance with the provisions of the 2006 Rules.
Consequently, the eligible family members are entitled to
financial assistance amounting to ₹ 29,21,400/-.
15. The next consideration is whether the High Court was
justified in deducting the aforesaid amount of financial
assistance of ₹ 29,21,400/- from the total award amount under
the Act. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the
jurisprudence regarding dual benefits under the head of loss of
income in Shashi Sharma (supra) . By adopting a harmonious
approach, this Court held therein that the amount receivable by
the dependents under the 2006 Rules towards pay and other
12
service-related emoluments is liable to be excluded or deducted
while computing compensation under the head of loss of
dependency under the Act. Otherwise, the compensation
granted would exceed the actual pecuniary loss suffered and
would operate as a financial windfall to the claimants. The
relevant extract from Shashi Sharma (supra) is as follows:
“18. The principle discernible from the exposition
in Helen C. Rebello case is that if the amount
“would be due to the dependants of the deceased
even otherwise”, the same shall not be deductible
from the compensation amount payable under the
1988 Act. At the same time, it must be borne in mind
that loss of income is a significant head under
which compensation is claimed in terms of the 1988
Act. The component of quantum of “loss of income”,
inter alia, can be “pay and wages” which otherwise
would have been earned by the deceased employee
if he had survived the injury caused to him due to
motor accident. If the dependants of the deceased
employee, however, were to be compensated by the
employer in that behalf, as is predicated by the
2006 Rules—to grant compassionate assistance by
way of ex gratia financial assistance on
compassionate grounds to the dependants of the
deceased government employee who dies in
harness, it is unfathomable that the dependants
can still be permitted to claim the same amount as
a possible or likely loss of income to be suffered by
them to maintain a claim for compensation under
the 1988 Act.
xxx
26. Indeed, similar statutory exclusion of claim
receivable under the 2006 Rules is absent. That,
13
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 2006 Rules would come into play if the
government employee dies in harness even due to
natural death. At the same time, the 2006 Rules do
not expressly enable the dependants 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 1988 Act, therefore, is to exclude the amount
received or receivable by the dependants of the
deceased government employee under the 2006
Rules 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 dependants
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 is concerned, if the deceased
government employee had survived the accident
can still be pursued by them in their claim under the
1988 Act. For, it is not covered by the 2006 Rules.
Similarly, other benefits extended to the
14
dependants 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 dependants of the deceased
government employee, applying the principle
expounded in Helen C. Rebello and Patricia Jean
Mahajan cases.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
In view of the aforesaid precedent, the instant issue is
answered in the affirmative and the High Court has rightly
deducted the amount of financial assistance payable to the
eligible family members under the 2006 Rules from the total
compensation awarded under the Act.
Findings on Issue B
16. The High Court after assessing the amount of financial
assistance payable to the Appellants under the 2006 Rules has
omitted to consider the eligibility of the Appellant No.3 (mother),
being one of the dependents under the Act. Rule 3 of the 2006
Rules stipulates that the eligibility to receive financial
assistance would be determined as per the provisions of the
Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the
“1964 Scheme” ). Thus, before harping on the issue of eligibility
15
of the “mother” under the 2006 Rules, we deem it apposite to
refer to the definition of an “eligible family member” as provided
under Para 4, sub-para (ii) and (iii) of the 1964 Scheme. The
relevant extract of said provisions is as follows:
“ 4 ( ii) "Family" for the purposes of this scheme
includes the following relatives of the officer:-
(a) wife, in the case of a male officer;
(b) husband, in the case of a female officer;
(c) minor sons;
(d) unmarried minor daughters;
(e) widowed/legally divorced daughters; and
(f) the parents of an unmarried officer.
Note 1 :- Clauses (c) and (d) include children
adopted legally before retirement.
Note 2 .- A judicially separated wife/husband does
not loose her/his legal status of wife/husband of
the Government employee and is thus eligible for
the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964.
(iii) The pension is admissible—
(a) in the case of widow/widower upto the date of
death or remarriage, whichever is earlier;
(b) in the case of son/unmarried daughter until
he/she attains the age of twenty five years;
(c) in the case of parents who were wholly
dependent on the Government employee when
he/she was alive, upto the date of death provided
the deceased employee had left behind neither a
widow nor a child;
(d) in the case of children in the order of their birth
and younger of them will not eligible for family
pension unless the elder next above him/her has
become ineligible for grant of family pension;
(e) in the case of divorced/widowed daughter till
they are alive :
16
Provided that an unmarried daughter including
widowed/divorced daughter will become ineligible
for pension from the date of her
marriage/remarriage:
Provided further that the son/unmarried
daughter including widowed/divorced daughter
shall become ineligible for pension if he or she starts
earning livelihood.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. Upon perusing Para 4, sub-para (ii) and (iii) of the 1964
Scheme, read analogously with the 2006 Rules, it is clear that
Appellant No. 1 (widow) and Appellant No. 2 (daughter) are the
eligible family members entitled to the ex-gratia financial
assistance under the 2006 Rules. On the other hand, since it is
evident that the parents only become entitled in case the
deceased employee was unmarried or has not left behind his
widow or any children, hence, the Appellant No. 3, being the
mother of the deceased, is not entitled to any financial
assistance under the 2006 Rules.
18. This same position of law has been further clarified by the
High Court in Ram Kala Devi vs. State of Haryana and
, ,
Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 12159 wherein it
was held that a dependent parent is entitled to claim the benefit
of financial assistance under the 2006 Rules only when the
17
employee is not survived by either a widow or a child. The
relevant extract of the case is as follows:
“ 12. The financial assistance rules of 2006 provide
for eligibility to be as per the Scheme of 1964 and
the person held eligible are prescribed under Rule
4(ii) of the Scheme of 1964 entitles the parents to
the same only if the employee is unmarried.
13. Since at the time of his death, deceased was
survived by his children including unmarried
daughter, hence, petitioner being mother is not
eligible for the same.
14. So far as his reliance to Rule 4(iii) of the Pension
Rules, 1964 is concerned, the same is misplaced
since the said rule governs grant of family pension
and not financial assistance under the Scheme of
2006. The same is a separate claim which is not
the relief claimed for in the present petition.
15. Even otherwise, even if arguments of the
petitioner are accepted for the sake of arguments
that Clause ‘C’ of the admissibility of pension as
prescribed under Rule 4(iii) of the Pension Scheme,
1964 as applicable to the Financial Assistance
Rules, 2006, the same would not be applicable to
the case of the petitioner, yet, on a conjoint reading
of the Financial Assistance Rules, 2006 with the
Haryana Pension Scheme of 1964, a wholly
dependent parent of a deceased Government
employee shall be entitled to financial assistance
only in case the employee does not leave behind
either a widow or a child.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
been interpreting that in the absence of any other
dependent of Government employee, the next in the
order i.e. a dependent parent would automatically
become eligible cannot be read into the said rules
since the proviso is of vital significance. The said
proviso entitles a dependent parent to claim the
18
benefit of financial assistance only when the
employee is not survived by either a widow or a
child. In the present case, even though the
deceased employee was not left behind by a
widow, however, in the present case he was
undisputedly left behind by two children. The
scheme does not contemplate that in the event of
the children becoming ineligible for grant of any
further financial assistance on account of suffering
ineligibility on becoming major or marriage, the
benefit would be admissible to the dependent
parent. Any such reading into the scheme, that is
not prescribed therein, would tantamount to
legislation, which such act exercise cannot be
undertaken by a Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
In view of the aforesaid, the Appellant No. 3 (mother) cannot
be treated as a family member eligible to receive the ex-gratia
financial assistance in accordance with the 2006 Rules.
Findings on Issue C
19. The rule laid by this Court in the case of Shashi Sharma
(supra) , is substantive in nature. It has been rightly held that
there cannot be overlapping of compensation under the same
head. At the same time, other benefits like future escalations,
etc. cannot be deducted by application of the 2006 Rules.
Further, in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Birender
19
and Others , reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 , this Court while
reiterating the principle laid down in Shashi Sharma (supra) ,
has clarified that first, the total compensation under the Act
must be calculated and only thereafter, it must be adjusted in
terms of the financial assistance actually received under the
2006 Rules.
20. In the instant case, the Tribunal correctly assessed the
compensation under the head of loss of dependency by taking
the monthly salary of the deceased as ₹ 16,230/-, adding 50%
towards future prospects, and thereafter applying the multiplier
of 18 in accordance with the settled principles provided in the
case of Sarla Verma (supra). The High Court affirmed the said
computation in principle, but noticed that the Tribunal had
failed to deduct the income tax liability payable on the annual
income of the deceased. Accordingly, the High Court rightly
modified the award by deducting ₹ 9,490/- per annum towards
income tax liability and consequently recalculated the
compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency at
₹ 33,91,800/-. Apart from the aforesaid modification, the High
Court also correctly awarded compensation under the other
20
conventional heads and ultimately determined the total
compensation payable to the claimants at ₹ 36,91,800/-.
21. In addition thereto, the Tribunal has rightly excluded
Appellant No. 4 (father) from the category of dependents entitled
to compensation under the Act, as he was a retired government
employee and was already receiving pension. Consequently,
only Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were treated as dependents of the
deceased within the meaning of the Act and were held entitled
to compensation under the head of loss of dependency in equal
proportion. Further, since the deceased was employed under
the Haryana Government, his family members were also entitled
to receive financial assistance under the 2006 Rules.
Accordingly, the High Court correctly determined the amount of
such financial assistance at ₹ 29,21,400/-. We are in agreement
with the findings of the High Court insofar as the calculation of
the said amount and its deduction from the total compensation
payable under the Act is concerned, thereby reducing the
₹ ₹
payable compensation to 7,70,400/- ( 36,91,800 –
₹ 29,21,400). However, such deduction, in effect, defeats and
negates the entitlement of the mother of the deceased, who was
21
admittedly a dependent under the Act but was not eligible to
receive any financial assistance under the 2006 Rules.
22. It is needless to state that statutory rules require a strict
interpretation and the courts cannot read their own
interpretation into such rules or expand the scope of such rules.
However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that under social
welfare legislations, the paramount consideration is awarding
just and adequate compensation for all dependents of the
deceased. We risk diluting the said object if one of the
dependents is deprived of the quantum of loss of dependency
while the other dependents receive the same in bounty.
Although it is settled that the mother is not entitled to any ex-
gratia financial assistance under the 2006 Rules, since the
deceased is survived by a widow and daughter, however, that
does not diminish the independent legal injury suffered by the
mother due to the sudden death of her son.
23. This Court in the case of State of Haryana and Another
vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others , reported in (2003) 7 SCC 484,
has held that while ensuring that the award of compensation
under the Act is not profitable or in the nature of unjust
22
enrichment, the award should also not turn out to be a mere
pittance or grossly meagre. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is extracted hereinbelow:
“7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal
constituted under the Act as provided in Section
168 is required to make an award determining the
amount of compensation which is to be in the real
sense “damages” which in turn appears to it to be
“just and reasonable”. It has to be borne in mind
that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly
be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time
it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is
not expected to be a windfall for the victim.
Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
compensation must be “just” and it cannot be a
bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should
not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a
duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the
amount of compensation, which should be just.
What would be “just” compensation is a vexed
question. There can be no golden rule applicable to
all cases for measuring the value of human life or a
limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by
precise mathematical calculations. It would depend
upon the particular facts and circumstances, and
attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every
method or mode adopted for assessing
compensation has to be considered in the
background of “just” compensation which is the
pivotal consideration. Though by use of the
expression “which appears to it to be just” a wide
discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the
determination has to be rational, to be done by a
judicious approach and not the outcome of whims,
wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression
“just” denotes equitability, fairness and
23
reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it
cannot be just.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. The High Court, while applying the dictum laid down in
Shashi Sharma (supra) and setting off the amount of loss of
income granted under the 2006 Rules as against the
compensation awarded under the Act, has reduced the award
amount, without taking note of the fact that the Appellant No.3
(mother) is not entitled to any financial assistance under the
2006 Rules, thus leaving her devoid of her rightful
compensation under the head of loss of dependency on both
fronts. Negating the mother’s claim, who is entitled to a 1/3rd
share of the total compensation awarded, would amount to an
illegal enrichment of the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company
at the cost of a dependent parent.
25. In light of the aforesaid discussion, a sum of ₹ 11,30,600/,
being the 1/3rd share of the compensation awarded under the
head of loss of dependency out of the total amount of
₹ 33,91,800/- as determined by the High Court, is to be
awarded in favour of the Appellant No. 3, namely, the mother of
the deceased. It goes without saying that the amount of
24
₹ 11,30,600/- payable to the Appellant No. 3 will be added to
the sum of ₹ 7,70,400/- as awarded by the High Court in the
impugned order. Consequently, it would bring the total
₹
compensation under the Act to 19,01,000/-, on which interest
would be payable as accorded by the Tribunal and upheld by
the High Court. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable
to pay the aforesaid compensation to the Appellant/Claimants
within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order.
26. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. All pending
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
………………………., J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
………………………., J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
………………………., J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 26, 2026.
25