Financial assistance under compassionate grounds rules is deductible from motor accident compensation only for eligible dependents.

On July 23, 2012, Sachin Kumar (deceased), a 25-year-old Haryana Police Constable, died in a motor accident caused by a negligently driven Trolla

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹37,30,680 to the widow, daughter, and mother (Appellants 1-3), excluding the father (Appellant 4) as a non-dependent

On appeal, the High Court reduced the award to ₹7,70,400 after deducting ₹29,21,400, representing the financial assistance payable to the family under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (2006 Rules)

The Appellants challenged this set-off, particularly arguing that the mother was ineligible for the 2006 Rules benefit and thus should not have her share of the MACT award deducted

1. Whether financial assistance under the 2006 Rules is liable to be deducted from compensation assessed under the Motor Vehicles Act to prevent duality of loss of income

2. Whether such financial assistance affects the entitlement of the mother under the Act if she is ineligible under the 2006 Rules

3. What is the final quantum of "just compensation" to be awarded to the claimants

The Court applied the principle of "harmonious approach" from Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma (2016) 9 SCC 627, which mandates that ex-gratia financial assistance equivalent to "pay and allowances" under the 2006 Rules must be deducted from the "loss of dependency" head to prevent double recovery

benefits like future escalation, family pension, or life insurance remain non-deductible as per Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra RTC

The court also applied the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, which defines "family" for the 2006 Rules, excluding parents if a widow or child survives the deceased

The court relied on State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur (2003) 7 SCC 484, establishing that compensation must be "just"—neither a windfall nor a pittance

The Court affirmed that while the High Court correctly calculated the 2006 Rules assistance at ₹29,21,400 (last drawn salary for 15 years), it erred in its blanket deduction from the total MACT award

Under Rule 4 of the 1964 Scheme (read with 2006 Rules), only the widow and daughter were eligible for the government’s financial assistance; the mother was legally ineligible because the deceased left behind a spouse and child

The Court reasoned that deducting the government assistance from the total pool effectively deprived the mother of her 1/3rd share of the "loss of dependency" compensation she was entitled to under the Motor Vehicles Act

To allow this deduction against the mother's share would result in "illegal enrichment" of the Insurance Company at the expense of a dependent parent

The Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹19,01,000 with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, holding the Respondents jointly and severally liable