KRISHNA Vs. TEK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) Petitioners' counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. [(1999) 1 SCC 90] to contend that the monetary benefit received by the family of the deceased-employee under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be reduced in terms of the amount received under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2006 ("the Rules, 2006", for short) in terms of the judgment in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shashi Sharma [(2016) 9 SCC 627], since the payment made by the EmployerDepartment to the family of the deceased who died in harness is owing to death of the deceased during service and has no nexus to his death in a road traffic accident. Further, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the compensation awarded is on proving negligence on the part of the offending driver. Therefore, the High Court fell in error in deducting the amount of Rs.31,37,665.00 (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs, Thirty Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Five only) from Rs.34,40,480.00(Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs, Forty Thousand and Four Hundred and Eighty only) and thereby awarding a paltry sum of Rs.3,02,815.00 (Rupees Three Lakhs, two Thousand and Eight hundred and Fifteen Only) to the petitioners herein.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shashi Sharma (supra) to contend that the very same provision which was considered by the High Court namely Rule 5 of the Rules, 2006 was interpreted in the context of awarding of compensation to the dependents of the deceased in a road traffic accident to hold that the said amount awarded by the Haryana Government to the family of the dependents of the deceased has to be deducted.