New Delhi, Apr 9 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had deducted only 50pc of the compensation payable under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, in a motor accident compensation case.
The Apex Court held that the rules do not entitle dependants to claim parallel compensation from an insurance company in cases of accidental death.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company and observed, “The appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgement to the extent it deducted only 50% of the compensation payable under the Rules of 2006 but also making it clear that if the amounts are already paid to the respondents, no recovery shall be made.”
The matter arose from a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where compensation had been awarded to the dependents of a deceased government employee.
The insurance company, represented by Advocate Abhishek Gola, contended that the High Court, while noting the Apex Court’s decision in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma (2016), erroneously relied on its own contrary judgement in Kamla Devi v. Sahib Singh & Ors (2017).
The Apex Court observed that under the 2006 Rules, compassionate assistance is payable even in cases of natural death. However, these rules do not confer the right to receive similar compensation from a tortfeasor or insurer in cases of accidental death. Therefore, allowing dual benefits from both the state and the insurance company would lead to overcompensation, which is not legally sustainable.
The Bench was critical of the High Court’s approach, stating, “We cannot but observe that we are surprised that the High Court, despite noticing a judgement of this Court, failed to follow the dictum and instead relied on a contrary judgement of the High Court itself, which is per se in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.”
The Supreme Court held that the entire amount receivable under the Compassionate Assistance Rules must be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, as a measure of equity, it directed that no recovery be initiated for any amount already disbursed to the claimants.
The bench held that, as per the legal position, the compensation under statutory welfare schemes and tort law cannot be duplicated unless expressly provided for under the governing rules or statutes.
