Summary
The dependants of a 43-year-old Haryana Government employee killed in a motor accident were also entitled to financial assistance under the Haryana Compensation Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, and the High Court deducted half of that assistance from the Motor Vehicles Act compensation. The Court held that it was bound by the three-Judge decision in Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma, under which the pay and allowances payable under the 2006 Rules are deducted from the loss-of-income component (but not from consortium or other conventional heads), disagreed with the two-Judge decision in Krishna v. Tek Chand, and held that Sebastiani Lakra had not diluted Shashi Sharma. Compensation was recomputed at Rs.7,86,119 with no refund of amounts already paid.
Issues
- Whether the financial assistance payable under the Haryana 2006 Rules is deductible from compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and if so wholly or in part.
- Whether Shashi Sharma remained binding in view of Helen C. Rebello, Sebastiani Lakra and the two-Judge decision in Krishna v. Tek Chand.
- How the loss of income, loss of consortium and other conventional heads were to be computed and against which head the deduction was to be made.
Provisions considered
- Rules providing financial assistance to dependents, Haryana Compensation Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006The Rules continue the deceased employee's last drawn pay and allowances to the family for a period depending on age at death (15 years if under 35, 12 years between 35 and 48, 7 years at 48), a year-wise restriction resting on the same life-expectancy logic as the multiplier. Following Shashi Sharma, dependants cannot claim the same pay and wages twice, so the amount payable under the Rules is deducted from the loss of income computed under the M.V. Act; it cannot reduce loss of consortium or other conventional heads. (¶¶ 9, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 167, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988A person entitled to compensation under both the M.V. Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 may claim under only one of them, at his election; referred to in Shashi Sharma as reflecting the bar on double benefit. (¶ 9)
- Section 53, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948The bar on receiving compensation under any other law for an employment injury, and the pending reference in Rajkumar Agrawal on whether a motor accident claim lies for an insured employee, were held not relevant since Shashi Sharma authoritatively decides the position under the 2006 Rules. (¶¶ 5, 8)
Held
- Helen C. Rebello holds that pecuniary advantages such as life insurance, provident fund, family pension or deposits, which have no direct nexus with the accidental death, are not deductible from M.V. Act compensation. Shashi Sharma affirmed that principle but held that the assistance under the 2006 Rules, being compassionate continuation of the employee's pay and wages, duplicates the loss-of-income claim and must be deducted, since receipt of both would be a double benefit. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- Sebastiani Lakra, which held an employees' benefit scheme non-deductible, specifically referred to and distinguished Shashi Sharma without differing from it on the 2006 Rules, and as a co-equal three-Judge Bench could not have done so. Under Pranay Sethi an earlier decision of a co-equal Bench binds a later one, so the Court could not agree with the two-Judge decision in Krishna v. Tek Chand and was bound to follow Shashi Sharma, as followed in Birendra and Sunita Sharma. (¶¶ 6, 10, 11, 12)
- The proper method where the deceased was a Government employee covered by the 2006 Rules is for the Tribunal first to compute the loss of income on the principles in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, then deduct the pay and allowances payable under the Rules, and award the difference if the M.V. Act figure is higher. Loss of consortium, which extends to parental and filial consortium (Magma General Insurance and Somwati), and the other conventional heads cannot be reduced by amounts received under the Rules. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- On the facts the last drawn salary of Rs.30,107 deposed by PW-4 had to be used for the M.V. Act computation as well, with no income-tax deduction since none had been made from the assistance figure, 30% future prospects, multiplier 14 for age 43 and one-fourth deducted for personal expenses, giving loss of income of Rs.49,31,527 from which the assistance of Rs.43,35,408 payable under the Rules was deducted. Adding Rs.1,60,000 as loss of consortium for the widow and three children and Rs.30,000 for loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation came to Rs.7,86,119; compensation already paid was not to be refunded. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeals disposed of on the question of law following Shashi Sharma. Compensation recomputed at Rs.7,86,119 after deducting the financial assistance payable under the 2006 Rules from the loss of income; compensation already paid to the claimants not to be refunded.