A dependent mother cannot be deprived of her rightful share in motor accident compensation merely because other family members receive financial assistance under a state ex-gratia scheme, the Supreme Court has ruled while enhancing compensation awarded to the family of a deceased Haryana Police constable.
The decision came in a case arising from the death of Constable Sachin Kumar, who lost his life in a road accident in 2012. His widow, minor daughter, mother and father had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded ₹37.30 lakh but declined to treat the father as a dependent since he was a retired government employee receiving a pension.
The dispute later reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court after an appeal by the insurer. The High Court noted that the deceased’s family was entitled to benefits under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, which provide financial assistance equivalent to the employee’s last drawn salary for a specified period. Relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling, it deducted ₹29.21 lakh payable under the scheme from the compensation amount and reduced the final award to ₹7.70 lakh.
Challenging that decision, the claimants argued before the Supreme Court that the assistance granted under the state scheme was a welfare measure and should not drastically reduce compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. They further contended that the deceased’s mother did not receive any benefit under the Haryana scheme and therefore her entitlement could not be extinguished through such deductions.
A three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi reaffirmed the principle that financial assistance received under the 2006 Rules must be adjusted against compensation awarded for loss of dependency. The Court observed that allowing both benefits in full would result in duplication of compensation for the same pecuniary loss.
However, the Bench drew a crucial distinction regarding the mother’s position. Examining the framework of the 2006 Rules alongside the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, the Court found that when a deceased employee leaves behind a widow and child, parents are not entitled to receive financial assistance under the Haryana scheme. Consequently, the mother had received no benefit from that arrangement.
The Court held that while the deduction itself was legally justified, applying it in a manner that erased the mother’s independent claim under the Motor Vehicles Act would be unjust. It emphasized that the mother suffered a distinct legal and financial loss due to the death of her son, and that loss could not be ignored simply because other family members were covered by the state assistance scheme.
Observing that denying compensation to the mother would effectively hand an unintended benefit to the insurance company, the Court awarded her a one-third share of the loss-of-dependency compensation, amounting to ₹11.30 lakh.
The Bench noted that eliminating the mother’s entitlement would result in an impermissible enrichment of the insurer at the expense of a dependent parent who had suffered a genuine loss.
With this modification, the Supreme Court increased the total compensation payable to the claimants from ₹7.70 lakh to ₹19.01 lakh. The enhanced amount will carry the same interest awarded by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court. The insurer and other concerned parties have been directed to make payment within eight weeks.
