Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 469
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No……………..of 2025
[@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9515 of 2020]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
SMT. SUNITA SHARMA AND ORS.
...RESPONDENTS
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The sole question arising in the above case is as to
how the compensation payable under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of
1
Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 has to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.08
17:43:22 IST
Reason:
1
For brevity ‘Rules of 2006’
Page 1 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
be dealt with in computing the compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. We notice that in the present case, the High Court
has deducted only 50% of the compensation under the
Rules of 2006 from the amounts awarded in the Claim
Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned
counsel for the Insurance Company points out that
despite noticing the decision in Reliance General
2
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma , the High Court
has ignored the dictum and followed the Judgment of that
3
High Court in Kamla Devi v. Sahib Singh & Ors.
4. In the present case though, notice has been served
on respondent, none appears. The learned counsel for
the Insurance Company submits that the question arising
is no longer res-integra, but the High Court is awarding
compensation without deducting the compensation
2
(2016) 9 SCC 627
3
FAO No.3064 of 2013 and others – decided on 30.11.2017
Page 2 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
payable under the Rules of 2006. Reliance is also placed
on the subsequent decision of this Court in National
4
Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Others .
It is undertaken that there will be no refund claimed from
the respondents-claimants who have been awarded
compensation by the High Court after deducting 50% of
the compensation awarded under the Rules of 2006.
2
5. In Shashi Sharma , a three Judge Bench held so in
paragraph 26:
“26. …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 dependents/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
4
2020 SCC Online SC 28
Page 3 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
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.
Page 4 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
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 Helen C. Rebello v.
Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Patricia Jean Mahanan,
(2002) 6 SCC 281 cases.”
4
6. In Birender also while enhancing the award
amounts the payment was made subject to the amounts
received under the rules of 2006, in the following
manner:
“However, this amount alongwith interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition till payment, will be payable
subject to the outcome of the application made
by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the competent
Page 5 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
authority for grant of financial assistance under
the Rules of 2006. If that application is allowed
and the amount becomes payable towards
financial assistance under the said Rules to the
specified legal representatives of the deceased,
commensurate amount will have to be deducted
from the compensation amount along with
interest component thereon. The respondent
Nos.1 and 2, therefore, can be permitted to
withdraw the compensation amount only upon
filing of an affidavit-cum-declaration before the
executing Court that they have not received nor
would claim any amount towards financial
assistance under the Rules of 2006 and if already
received or to be received in future on that
account, the amount so received will be
disclosed to the executing Court, which will
have to be deducted from the compensation
amount determined in terms of this order”.
7. The appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment
impugned to the extent it deducted only 50% of the
compensation payable under the Rules of 2006 but also
Page 6 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
making it clear that if the amounts are already paid to the
respondents, no recovery shall be made.
8. We cannot but observe that we are surprised that
the High Court despite noticing a judgment of this Court,
in the impugned judgment, failed to follow the dictum
and followed a contrary judgment of the High Court
itself; which is per-se in violation of Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
.……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 8, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No……………..of 2025
[@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9515 of 2020]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
SMT. SUNITA SHARMA AND ORS.
...RESPONDENTS
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The sole question arising in the above case is as to
how the compensation payable under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of
1
Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 has to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.08
17:43:22 IST
Reason:
1
For brevity ‘Rules of 2006’
Page 1 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
be dealt with in computing the compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. We notice that in the present case, the High Court
has deducted only 50% of the compensation under the
Rules of 2006 from the amounts awarded in the Claim
Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned
counsel for the Insurance Company points out that
despite noticing the decision in Reliance General
2
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma , the High Court
has ignored the dictum and followed the Judgment of that
3
High Court in Kamla Devi v. Sahib Singh & Ors.
4. In the present case though, notice has been served
on respondent, none appears. The learned counsel for
the Insurance Company submits that the question arising
is no longer res-integra, but the High Court is awarding
compensation without deducting the compensation
2
(2016) 9 SCC 627
3
FAO No.3064 of 2013 and others – decided on 30.11.2017
Page 2 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
payable under the Rules of 2006. Reliance is also placed
on the subsequent decision of this Court in National
4
Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Others .
It is undertaken that there will be no refund claimed from
the respondents-claimants who have been awarded
compensation by the High Court after deducting 50% of
the compensation awarded under the Rules of 2006.
2
5. In Shashi Sharma , a three Judge Bench held so in
paragraph 26:
“26. …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 dependents/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
4
2020 SCC Online SC 28
Page 3 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
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.
Page 4 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
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 Helen C. Rebello v.
Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Patricia Jean Mahanan,
(2002) 6 SCC 281 cases.”
4
6. In Birender also while enhancing the award
amounts the payment was made subject to the amounts
received under the rules of 2006, in the following
manner:
“However, this amount alongwith interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition till payment, will be payable
subject to the outcome of the application made
by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the competent
Page 5 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
authority for grant of financial assistance under
the Rules of 2006. If that application is allowed
and the amount becomes payable towards
financial assistance under the said Rules to the
specified legal representatives of the deceased,
commensurate amount will have to be deducted
from the compensation amount along with
interest component thereon. The respondent
Nos.1 and 2, therefore, can be permitted to
withdraw the compensation amount only upon
filing of an affidavit-cum-declaration before the
executing Court that they have not received nor
would claim any amount towards financial
assistance under the Rules of 2006 and if already
received or to be received in future on that
account, the amount so received will be
disclosed to the executing Court, which will
have to be deducted from the compensation
amount determined in terms of this order”.
7. The appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment
impugned to the extent it deducted only 50% of the
compensation payable under the Rules of 2006 but also
Page 6 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020
making it clear that if the amounts are already paid to the
respondents, no recovery shall be made.
8. We cannot but observe that we are surprised that
the High Court despite noticing a judgment of this Court,
in the impugned judgment, failed to follow the dictum
and followed a contrary judgment of the High Court
itself; which is per-se in violation of Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
.……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 8, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.9515 of 2020