Punja In Th High Court · 2026

as PW-1 it was submitted that the deceased, was employed as a bus conductor with Haryana Roadways and drawing a salary of Rs. 13,588/- per month, which is duly supported by the salary certificate placed on record as Ex.P9. It was further proved on record that the deceased was paid allowances for overtime and night shift, which for the month of October were Rs. 3,820/- and Rs. 950/- respectively. However, the learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 10,783/- per month, as it failed to take into consideration the amounts DINESH KUMAR 2026.04.16 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) received towards overtime and night shift allowances, which (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -4- formed part of the actual earnings of the deceased. Accordingly, this Court reassesses the income of the deceased on the basis of his last drawn salary, including overtime and night shift allowances, @ Rs. 18,358/-. [6.1] Furthermore, a perusal of the record show that the widow of the deceased, was receiving monthly financial assistance of approximately Rs. 11,000/-. This assertion stood substantiated by the letter issued by the General Manager, Haryana State Transport, Delhi (Ex.R2), whereby financial assistance under the “Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 was sanctioned in her favour to the tune of Rs. 11,027/- per month. [6.2] Additionally, the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation while deducting the financial assistance received by the claimants from the amount of compensation awarded. However, the latest legal position in this regard has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. V. Kanika and Ors reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1167, wherein it has been clarified that while computing compensation, only such financial assistance is liable to be deducted which overlaps or corresponds to the same pecuniary loss, particularly loss of income, for which compensation is awarded under the MVA. Any benefit that is not DINESH KUMAR 2026.04.16 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) in the nature of income substitution or is otherwise unconnected (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -5- with the accident-related loss is not deductible. The Court further emphasized that such deduction must be based on actual receipt or proven entitlement and not on mere assumption. Thus, only overlapping or equivalent benefits are subject to deduction, while unrelated financial assistance remains intact.Relevant extract is reproduced hereunder:- “6.3 On a close reading of the two judgments, Shashi Sharma (supra) and Birender (supra) it can be concluded that they are not inconsistent on any point of law. Both decisions operate within the same conceptual framework governing the deduction of financial assistance under the 2006 Rules from compensation awarded under the MVA. The laid down in Shashi Sharma essentially substantive in character. It clarifies deduction is permissible only to the extent that financial assistance overlaps with the same pecuniary loss for which compensation is awarded under the MVA, most notably the loss of income. Benefits that are not in the nature of income substitution, or that are otherwise unconnected to the accident-related loss, are not deductible. The decision is therefore concerned with the nature and scope of deductible benefits. Birender does not revisit or alter this substantive rule. Instead, it addresses the stage at which such deductions may be made and the evidentiary basis required for doing so. The Court held thatthe High Court was not justified in deducting a portion of the financial assistance merely on the assumption that the claimants were entitled to it. It emphasized that eligibility or actual receipt must be established on record before any deduction is effected. The Court, therefore, required DINESH KUMAR 2026.04.16 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -6- compensation under the MVA be determined in full, with a declaration mechanism to adjust the award overlapping assistance is in fact received. Thus, the two decisions are consistent in principle. Shashi Sharma defines what is deductible, while Birender clarifies when and how such deductions should be made. The latter does not depart from the former; rather, it ensures that the substantive rule is applied with appropriate procedural safeguards and without speculative assumptions. Together, they form a coherent legal position governing both the nature and the timing of deductions under the 2006 Rules.” [6.3] In the present case, as per the letter (Ex.R2), out of the total monthly financial assistance of Rs. 11,027/-, only a sum of Rs. 5,360/- was being received by the appellant/claimant No.1, Sewa (widow of the deceased), towards basic pay, while the remaining amount was paid under various ancillary heads as Grade Pay, Dearness Allowance (DA) and medical allowances. The distribution of the same is reproduced hereunder:- Basic Pay Grade Pay 5,360/- 1,900/- Dearness allowance @ 45% Medical Allowance 3,627/- further as sanctioned by the Govt. from time to time. 500/- Total 11,027/- Accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Kanika’s case (supra), only the said amount of Rs. 5,360/- being the basic pay component is liable to be taken into account for the DINESH KUMAR 2026.04.16 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) purpose of deduction. Since the financial assistance under the (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -7- applicable Rules is payable for the period from 22.10.2010 to

31.03.2022, i.e., for a total duration of 11 years 5 months and 9 days (137.3 months), the aggregate amount liable to be deducted the compensation thus works out to be Rs.7,35,928/-. [7] Further, the computation of compensation, including the addition towards future prospects, application of appropriate multiplier, conventional/statutory heads, also warrants fresh reassessment. QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. [8] As per the averments made in the claim petition and the testimony of PW-1, i.e. the widow of the deceased, the age of the deceased at the time of his death was stated to be 46 years, however, no documentary evidence has been produced on record to substantiate his age. Therefore, in the absence of any other cogent and reliable documentary evidence on record, this Court deems it appropriate to rely upon the testimony and accordingly assesses the age of the deceased as 46 years. Thus, placing reliance upon the law laid down in the case “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”, reported as 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, and “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others” reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, 30% of the income needs to be granted DINESH KUMAR 2026.04.16 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) towards future prospects. Accordingly, multiplier of 13 is applied. (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -8- Further, as the dependents of the deceased comprise the widow, three children and his parents; six in all, the appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, therefore, ought to be assessed at one-fourth. QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS [9] Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and “United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under conventional heads is also required to be assessed accordingly. Appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled for Rs. 18,000/- as compensation under funeral head and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of Consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,88,000/- (48,000 x 6) as appellants/claimants being the widow, 3 children and the parents are entitled to spousal, parental and filial consortium. CONCLUSION [10] In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants/claimants are held entitled the grant of compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Nature

2. Annual Income of deceased (Rs. 18,358/- last drawn) Add 30% future prospects Amount (in Rs.) 2,20,296.00 66,088.80 DINESH KUMAR 2026.04.16 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

9. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) Income (cid:4) Total 66,088.80) Deduction (1/4th) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -9- (Rs. 2,20,296 + Rs. 2,86,384.80 Net Income (Rs. 2,86,384.80–71,596.20 = 2,14,788.60) Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 13 as per the age of 46 years (Rs. 2,14,790 x 13) Loss of Consortium Funeral expenses Loss of estate Total compensation Deduction Financial Assistance Rules of 2006 (Rs. 31,16,270 – Rs. 7,35,928) Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount 71,596.20 2,14,790.00 (Round Off) 27,92,270.00 2,88,000.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 31,16,270.00 23,80,342.00 1,46,108.00 22,34,234.00 However, it is made clear that such deduction shall be made subject to the proof of complete payment of the financial assistance to appellant/claimant No.1 in view of the law laid down “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Birender & Ors.” reported as 2020 (11) SCC 356 and further reiterated in the case of Kanika’s case (supra). [11] The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 and approved in a subsequent judgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation DINESH KUMAR 2026.04.16 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -10- petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. [12] In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. The liability to satisfy the award shall remain the same as determined by the Tribunal. [13] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed off. April 16, 2026 ‘dk kamra’ ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Whether Reportable : Yes Yes No No DINESH KUMAR 2026.04.16 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document