RANCHI, India, Dec. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Nov. 19:
1. Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment of award of compensation passed by District Judge I-cum-MACT, Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No.107 of 2021 whereby and whereunder compensation has been awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the claimants for which liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount with a right to recovery.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that in effect the claimant did not suffer any financial loss as opposite party no.1- Pushpa Kumari, the widow of the deceased was given compassionate appointment by Steel Authority of India Limited on the death of her husband, Niranjan Kumar, who was employed in Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro. Reliance is placed on Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9515 of 2020 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita Sharma & Others), wherein it has been held that the High Court had deducted only 50% of the compensation under Deceased Government Employment Rules, 2006 of the Government of Haryana. It is further argued that the factum of accident is also under cloud as there was no DTO report.
3. Having considered the submissions, the main point for determination in the instant appeal is whether compassionate appointment to Claimant No.1, can be ground for disallowing the claim case or reducing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
4. On perusal of the authority relied upon, it is manifest that the direction of the Apex Court was confined to deduction of 50% of the compensation under Deceased Government Employment Rules, 2006 as framed by the Government of Haryana. No such Rule is here that mandates deduction of any compensation amount on account of compassionate appointment being granted by the employer-Company.
5. Law in this regard has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 13668-13669 of 2024 (Balwinder Kaur Vs. Punjab State through its Secretary & Anr.) that the offering of compassionate appointment to a family member of the deceased cannot be a ground to dislodge a claim for death under the Motor Vehicle Act. In nutshell, it has been held that both are different reliefs and availability of one cannot be a ground for denial of another.
6. Further, I do not find any force in the argument advanced that accident has not been proved. The FIR, charge sheet and direct evidence prove that the death was accidental in nature.
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance compensation amount to the claimants within a month of the order. Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for payment.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
