LexNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SMT. SUNITA SHARMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 603 : 2025 INSC 469 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Sharma and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5093 of 2025) 08 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration How the compensation payable under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 has to be dealt with in computing the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 – 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 Insurance Company pointed out that despite noticing the decision in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, the High Court has ignored the dictum and followed the Judgment of High Court in Kamla Devi v. Sahib Singh & Ors: Held: The appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment impugned of the High Court 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 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. [Paras 7, 8] Case Law Cited Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma [2016] 6 SCR 488 : (2016) 9 SCC 627; National Insurance Company * Author 604 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Limited v. Birender and Others [2020] 1 SCR 946 : 2020 SCC Online SC 28 – relied on. Kamla Devi v. Sahib Singh & Ors., FAO No. 3064 of 2013 and others – decided on 30.11.2017 by the High Court – referred to. List of Acts Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. List of Keywords Compensation; Compensation payable; Claim petition; Amounts receivable under Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006; Deceased Government employee. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5093 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2019 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 908 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Abhishek Gola, Viresh B. Saharya, Akshat Agarwal, Rishabh Mathur. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment 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 Deceased Government Employees Rules, 20061 has to be dealt with in computing the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 1 For brevity ‘Rules of 2006’ [2025] 4 S.C.R. 605 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Sharma and Ors. 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 Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma,2 the High Court has ignored the dictum and followed the Judgment of that High Court in Kamla Devi v. Sahib Singh & Ors.3 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 payable under the Rules of 2006. Reliance is also placed on the subsequent decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Others.4 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. 5. In Shashi Sharma,2 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, there
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.