United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna Devi and Others

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the award dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as 8the Tribunal9) on the limited ground that the deceased was a Haryana Government employee and that the dependents of the deceased were entitled to receive the amount under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. Though it has been noted in the impugned award that the dependents of the deceased would be entitled to receive an amount of ¹32,59,008/-, however, while calculating the compensation to be awarded to the dependents, only 50% of the said amount i.e. ¹16,29,504 has been deducted from the compensation awarded.

¶14

AMAN JAIN 2025.12.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶15

FAO-2179-2024 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

¶18

compensation :

¶19

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation Awarded
1.	Monthlyincome	¹23,838
2.	Futureprospects 25%	[¹23,838 + ¹5,960]= ¹29,798
3.	Deduction 1/4^th	[¹29,798 - ¹7,450]= ¹22,348
4.	Annual income	[¹22,348 x 12]= ¹2,68,176
5.	Multiplier of 13	[¹2,68,176 x 13]= ¹34,86,288
6.	Funeral expenses	¹15,000
7.	Loss of estate	¹15,000
8.	Loss of consortium for widow	¹40,000
9.	Expenses incurred on the treatment of victim/deceased	¹1,99,900
	Total Compensation	¹37,56,188
	Amount to be deducted (received by respondents No.1 to 4 under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006)	¹16,29,504
	Compensation after deduction	¹21,26,684
	Interest	@ 9%p.a.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the

¶21

judgments of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the cases of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma & Ors. [2016(4) RCR (Civil) 569] and Krishna & Ors. vs. Tek Chand & Ors. [2024 ACJ 443] the entire amount received under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 has to be deducted while calculating the compensation payable to the respondents No.1 to 4 herein.

¶22

AMAN JAIN 2025.12.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶23

FAO-2179-2024 (O&M) -3-

¶24

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 does not dispute the aforesaid fact. Learned counsel, however, states that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head loss of consortium are not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642] .

¶25

Heard.

¶26

The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire amount received by respondents No.1 to 4 under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 ought to be deducted, deserves to be accepted. The Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Sharma (supra) has held as

¶27

under :

¶28

819. Reverting back to Rule 5, sub-clause (1) provides for the period during which the dependents of the deceased employee may receive financial assistance equivalent to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee in the normal course without raising a specific claim. Sub-rule (2) provides that the family shall be eligible to receive family pension as per the normal Rules only after the period during which they would

¶29

AMAN JAIN 2025.12.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶30

FAO-2179-2024 (O&M) -4-

¶31

receive the financial assistance in terms of sub-rule (1). Sub- rule (3) guarantees the family of a deceased Government employee of a Government residence in occupation for a period of one year from the date of death of the employee, upon payment of normal rent/license fee. By virtue of sub-rule (4), an ex-gratia assistance of 25,000/- is provided to the family of the deceased employee to meet the immediate needs on the loss of the bread earner. Sub-rule (5) clarifies that house rent allowance shall not be a part of allowance for the purposes of calculation of assistance.

¶32

20. Rule 5 broadly deals with two aspects. Firstly, to compensate the dependents of the deceased Government employee by granting ex-gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds for the loss of pay and other allowances for a specified period. The second part of Rule 5 is to compensate the dependents of the deceased Government employee by way of allowances and concessions - of retaining occupation of the Government residence on specified terms, of family pension and other allowance. As regards the second part, it deals with income from other source which any way is receivable by the dependants of the deceased Government employee. That cannot be deducted from the claim amount, for

¶33

AMAN JAIN 2025.12.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶34

FAO-2179-2024 (O&M) -5-

¶35

determination of a just compensation under the Act of 1988.

¶36

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 dependents/claimants. Somewhat similar situation has been spelt out in Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus:

¶37

167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained

¶38

AMAN JAIN 2025.12.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶39

FAO-2179-2024 (O&M) -6-

¶40

in the Workmen9s 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 Workmen9s 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.9

¶41

In the case of Krishna (supra) the judgment in the case of Shashi Sharma (supra) has been reiterated and relied upon. In view thereof, the entire amount i.e. ¹32,59,008 received by respondents No.1 to 4 under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 would have to be deducted.

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellant has fairly stated that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and the head loss of consortium are not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court. The amounts awarded under the head loss of consortium and under the conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses and loss of estate are not in accordance with the law laid down in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra). Accordingly, respondents No.1 to 4 would be entitled to ¹18,000 (¹15,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of estate and ¹18,000 (¹15,000 + 20% increase) towards funeral expenses. The respondents No.1 to 4, being the

¶43

AMAN JAIN 2025.12.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶44

FAO-2179-2024 (O&M) -7-

¶45

widow, the children and the mother of the deceased, would also be entitled to

¶46

¹48,000 each (¹40,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of consortium.

¶47

Accordingly, the reworked compensation to which respondents

¶48

No.1 to 4 are entitled to is as under :

¶49

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation Awarded
1.	Monthlyincome	¹23,838
2.	Futureprospects 25%	[¹23,838 + ¹5,960] = ¹29,798
3.	Deduction 1/4^th	[¹29,798 - ¹7,450] = ¹22,348
4.	Annual income	[¹22,348 x 12] = ¹2,68,176
5.	Multiplier of 13	[¹2,68,176 x 13] = ¹34,86,288
6.	Funeral expenses	¹18,000
7.	Loss of estate	¹18,000
8.	Loss of consortium (i) Spousal (ii) Parental (iii) Filial	¹48,000 [¹48,000 x 2] = ¹96,000 ¹48,000 Total = ¹1,92,000
9.	Expenses incurred on the treatment of victim/deceased	¹1,99,900
	Total Compensation	¹39,14,188
	Amount to be deducted (received by respondents No.1 to 4 under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006)	¹32,59,008
	Compensation after deduction	¹6,55,180

¶50

In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed

¶51

and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

¶52

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶53

23.12.2025 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶54

AMAN JAIN 2025.12.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renu Bala and Others Vs Savita Thaper and Another

Jugender Kumar Vs Rakesh Chandila

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Paramjit Singh @ Pamma

Rekha Devi and Others Vs Vinod Kumar and Others

Harpreet Kaur and Ors. Vs Sonu Kumar Singh

Palwinder Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh and Other