In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court has redefined the scope of compensation entitlement for families of deceased government employees involved in motor accidents. The verdict underscores the principle that there should be no double benefits accruing from tragic circumstances.
In a recent case, the Court deliberated on the claim filed by the family of a driver employed by the Haryana State Roadways who tragically lost his life in a road accident while on duty. The family sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 (MVA) for the demise of Raghubir, the deceased driver.
However, both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court rejected the claim, citing that the family was set to receive a substantial sum from the State Government under its compassionate assistance policy. This ruling was based on the precedent set by the 2016 judgment in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Sharma.
The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, reaffirmed this stance, emphasizing the need to prevent a windfall for claimants. The Court highlighted the distinction between benefit schemes where the deceased contributed, as opposed to ex-gratia payments made solely on compassionate grounds.
The bench pointed out that the compassionate assistance provided by the government was intended to alleviate the sudden loss of a breadwinner in the family, a circumstance mirrored by compensation under the MVA for motor accidents resulting from negligence.
In essence, the Court emphasized that there should be no duplication of benefits or undue advantage arising from misfortune. Families of deceased government employees involved in motor accidents cannot be entitled to both compensation under the MVA and ex-gratia payments from the government.
Therefore, in alignment with precedent and legal principles, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the deceased’s family seeking dual compensation, thereby reinforcing the equitable distribution of benefits in such unfortunate incidents.
