RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SHASHI SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 6 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 23-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016) 6 S.C.R. 488 
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
SHASHI SHARMA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9654of2016) 
SEPTEMBER23,2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi, PRAFULLA C. PANT AND 
A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
Compensation - Fatal accident - In motor accident - Of 
employee covered under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the 
Dependants of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 -
Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act granted after deducting 
the amount received by the claimants under 2006 Rules - High Court 
held that the amount paid under 2006 Rules could not have been 
deducted - On appeal, held: In the matter of determination of 
compensation under 1988 Act, the two cardinal principles are that 
it must be just and adequate and that no double benefit should be 
passed on to the claimants - The claimants· claim for the subject 
'Pay and Wages' under 1988 Act, which is receivable under r.5(1) 
of the 2006 Rules, would result in double payment towards the same 
head -
The harmonious approach for determining a just 
compensation payable under 1988 Act, is to exclude the amount 
received or receivable by the dependants of deceased Government 
employee, under 2006 Rules - Howeve1; claim towards loss of future 
escalation of income and other benefits, which are not covered under 
2006 Rules can be pursued under 1988 Act - Similarly other benefits 
extended in terms of Sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of r.5 of 2006 
Rules would remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be 
deducted - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 167 and 168 - Haryana 
Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of the Deceased 
Government Employees Rules, 2006 - r.5. 
Words and Phrases: 
Words 'compensation' and 'just' - Meaning of. in the collfext 
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The term compensation has not been defined in 
\ 
488 
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SHASHI 
489 
SHARMA & ORS. 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By interpretative process, it has 
been understood to mean to recompense the claimants for the 
possible loss suffered or likely to be suffered due to sudden and 
untimely death of their family member as a result of motor 
accident. [Para 15] [505-F-G] 
2. Two cardinal principles run through the provisions of 
the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 in the matter of determination of 
compensation. Firstly, the measure of compensation must be just 
and adequate; and secondly, no double benefit should be passed 
on to the claimants in the matter of award of compensation. 
Section 168 of the Act of 1988 makes the first principle explicit. 
Sub-section (1) of that provision makes it clear that the amount 
of compensation must be just. The word "just" means - fair, 
adequate, and reasonable. It has been derived from the Latin 
word "justus", connoting right and fair. That however may depend 
upon facts and circumstances of each case, as to what amount 
would be a just compensation. [Para 15] [505-G-JI; 506-A-B] 
State of Harayana & Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur & Ors. (2003) 
7 SCC 484 : 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 245; Smt. Sar/a 
Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Am: 
(2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 (5) SCR 1098 - relied on. 
3. Loss of income is a significant head under which 
compensation is claimed in terms of the Act of 1988. The 
component of quantum of "loss of income", inter alia, can be "pay 
and wages" which otherwise would have been earned by the 
deceased employee if he had survived the injury caused to him 
clue to motor accident. If the dependents of the deceased 
employee, however, were to be compensated by the employer in 
that behalf, as is predicated by the Haryana Compassionate 
Assistance to the Dependants of the Deceased Government 
Employees Rules, 2006 - to grant. compassionate assistance by 
way of ex-gratia financial assistirncc on compassionate grounds 
to the dependents of the deceased Govemment employee who 
dies in harness, it is unfathomable that the dependents can still 
be permitted to claim the same amount as a possible or likely 
loss of income to be suffered by them to maintain a claim for 
compensation under the Act of 1988. [Para 16] (506-C-E] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
490 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
4. Rule 5 of 2006 Rules 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 ot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.