NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus BIRENDER AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 13-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
v.
BIRENDER AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 242-243 of 2020)
JANUARY 13, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Application for
compensation – Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the
dependents of deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 – The
claim petition was filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, who were the
major sons of the deceased – The Tribunal held that respondent
nos. 1 & 2 cannot be deprived of the pecuniary benefits through
the deceased – The deduction towards personal expenses was kept
at 50% as the respondent nos. 1 & 2 were major and earning hands
– The total compensation was computed at Rs. 17,40,532/- –
However, the High Court noted that the financial assistance available
to the family of deceased, under the 2006 Rules would be
Rs. 33,29,712/- and deducted 50% of the said amount from
compensation amount of Rs. 29,20,772/ - – The High Court then
deducted Rs.16,64,856/- from the compensation amount of
Rs. 29,20,772/- – Appellant contended that High Court ought to
have deducted the entire amount of financial assistance under the
2006 Rules – Respondents contended that the High Court erred in
deducting 50% of the amount from compensation instead of one
third – On appeal held: The view taken by the High Court is not a
correct reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shashi
Sharma case – The High Court committed manifest error in assuming
that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 would be eligible to receive financial
assistance under the 2006 Rules – Further, there is no clear evidence
to get financial assistance or in fact, they are getting such financial
assistance under the 2006 Rules – The High Court, therefore, instead
of providing deduction of the amount receivable by the legal
representative of the deceased on this count (under the 2006 Rules),
from the compensation amount, should have independently
determined the compensatory amount and ordered payment thereof
subject to legal representative of the deceased filing affidavit/
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 946
946
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
declaration before the executing court that they have not received
nor would they claim any amount towards financial assistance under
2006 Rules, so as to become entitled to withdraw the entire
compensation amount.
Motor Vehicle Act,1988 – s.166 – Application for
compensation – Major sons of the deceased who were married and
gainfully employed – Entitlement of – Held: The legal representative
of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue
of cl(c) of s.166 – The Supreme court in Manjuri Bera had
expounded that liability to pay compensation under the case does
not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal
representative – It is settled that the legal representative of the
deceased have the right to apply for compensation – Having said
that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and
earning sons of the deceased being legal representative have a right
to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the
Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether
the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the
deceased and not to limit the claims towards conventional heads
only.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Whether the major sons of the deceased who are
married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? Whether such
legal representatives are entitled only for compensation under
the conventional heads? Whether the amount receivable by the
legal representatives of the deceased under the 2006 Rules is
required to be deducted as a whole or only portion thereof ?
[957-B-C]
1. Reverting to the first issue - that needs to be answered
on the basis of the scheme of the Act. Section 166 of the Act
provides for filing of application for compensation by persons
mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-Section (1) thereof. [Para
13][957-D]
2. The legal representatives of the deceased could move
application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section
166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.
BIRENDER AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the
expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court
in Manjuri Ber

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.