Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Uma Dhankar vs Mahabir Alias Golia on 16 February, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.21651/2023]
UMA DHANKAR & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MAHABIR ALIAS GOLIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The claimants are before this Court impugning the
order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the High Court in CR-2283 of
2022 vide which the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Hisar dismissing the execution petition
filed by the appellants, was upheld.
3. Briefly the facts available on record are that in an
accident, which took place on 15.01.2010, Dharamvir Dhankar
had expired. Claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Hisar by his widow, son and a minor daughter.
The Tribunal vide award dated 30.08.2012 assessed the
compensation at ₹57,97,400/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakh Ninety
Seven Thousand and Four Hundred only). However, noticing the
Signature Not Verified
fact that in view of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 1,
Date: 2026.02.28
15:09:13 IST
Reason:
the family will be getting financial assistance to the tune of
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2006 Rules’.
1
₹59,18,000/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakh Eighteen Thousand only)
approximately, the claim petition was dismissed.
3.1 The appeal filed before the High Court was partially
allowed. The amount of compensation was reduced to
₹19,45,268/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Forty Five Thousand Two
Hundred and Sixty Eight only). The same was calculated after
taking into consideration the amount to be received by the legal
representatives of the deceased under the 2006 Rules.
3.2 The matter came up before this Court. In C.A.
No.8996 of 2015, this Court vide order dated 28.10.2015 had set
aside the order passed by the High Court and directed that the
appellants shall be entitled to receive compensation as per the
award passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the appellants filed
execution petition. The same was dismissed vide order dated
16.11.2017. A sum of ₹19,45,268/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Forty
Five Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Eight only) deposited by
the insurance company, was permitted to be withdrawn by it. The
aforesaid order was upheld by the High Court vide the impugned
order.
4. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for
appellants is that once this Court had directed that the appellants
will be entitled to receive compensation as assessed by the
Tribunal, the Executing Court could not go beyond that. It is a
2
patent error committed by the Executing Court as well as the High
Court in not directing payment of the compensation in terms
thereof.
5. The claim petition may have been dismissed by the
Tribunal. However, in terms of the order passed by this Court, the
appellants are entitled to receive compensation as assessed by
the Tribunal.
6. The judgment of this Court in Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma 2 was delivered later on
and the principles laid down therein will not be applicable in the
case of the appellants, the petition having already been decided.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance
company submitted that in case, the amount as awarded to
appellants, in terms of the award of the Tribunal, is directed to be
paid, it would amount to unjust enrichment of the appellants. The
Courts always award just and fair compensation to the claimants.
As per the 2006 Rules, the family of the deceased employee was
entitled to receive full salary for the period of 12 years. Meaning
thereby that there was no loss of income during that period. The
aforesaid factor was to be considered for the purpose of
assessment of compensation. In fact, the High Court had
calculated compensation by taking into account that factor. The
insurance company being not aggrieved against the order passed
2 2016 INSC 909 : (2016) 9 SCC 627
3
by the High Court at that time, had not filed any petition before this
Court.
8. The judgment in Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd.’s case (supra) came up later. However, that lays down the
law on the subject. In the case in hand that issue was not
considered earlier.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the paper book.
10. The facts of the case have already been noticed in
paragraph no.3 of the order. At the cost of repetition, we may
mention that the Tribunal assessed the compensation at
₹57,97,400/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand
and Four Hundred only). However, considering the fact that the
family of the deceased was to receive ₹59,18,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Nine Lakh Eighteen Thousand only) approximately from the State
Government in view of the 2006 Rules, finally no compensation
was awarded. It was for the reason that for a period of 12 years,
the family of the deceased-employee was to get full salary under
the 2006 Rules.
11. The High Court, in appeal, considering the aforesaid
fact and applying the correct multiplier while factoring the receipt
of full salary by the family for a period of 12 years from the date of
death assessed the compensation at ₹19,45,268/- (Rupees
4
Nineteen Lakh Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Eight
only). This Court vide order dated 28.10.2015, in the appeal filed
by the claimants, did not find any merit in the arguments raised
seeking further enhancement of compensation. However, finally
the order passed by the High Court was set aside and the award
passed by the Tribunal was restored. When the appellants did not
get any compensation in the course of execution proceedings, the
matter has reached this Court again.
12. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
judgment of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.’s
case (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, the issue dealt with by
this Court was specifically with reference to the 2006 Rules. The
factum of entitlement to full salary by the family of the deceased-
employee for a period of 12 years from the date of death was
considered with reference to the compensation to which the family
may be entitled to under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was
opined that while determining a just compensation payable under
the 1988 Act, harmonious approach is to exclude the amount
received or receivable by the dependants of the deceased
government employee under the 2006 Rules towards the head
financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that
was last drawn by the deceased government employee. The
relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below:
5
“26. Indeed, similar statutory exclusion of
claim receivable under the 2006 Rules is absent.
That, however, does not mean that the Claims
Tribunal should remain oblivious to the fact that the
claim towards loss of pay and wages of the deceased
has already been or will be compensated by the
employer in the form of ex gratia financial assistance
on compassionate grounds under Rule 5(1). The
Claims Tribunal has to adjudicate the claim and
determine the amount of compensation which
appears to it to be just. The amount receivable by the
dependants/claimants towards the head of “pay and
allowances” in the form of ex gratia financial
assistance, therefore, cannot be paid for the second
time to the claimants. True it is, that the 2006 Rules
would come into play if the government employee
dies in harness even due to natural death. At the
same time, the 2006 Rules do not expressly enable
the dependants of the deceased government
employee to claim similar amount from the tortfeasor
or insurance company because of the accidental
death of the deceased government employee. The
harmonious approach for determining a just
compensation payable under the 1988 Act, therefore,
is to exclude the amount received or receivable by
the dependants of the deceased government
employee under the 2006 Rules towards the head
financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other
allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased
government employee in the normal course. This is
not to say that the amount or payment receivable by6
the dependants of the deceased government
employee under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, is the total
entitlement under the head of “loss of income”. So far
as the claim towards loss of future escalation of
income and other benefits is concerned, if the
deceased government employee had survived the
accident can still be pursued by them in their claim
under the 1988 Act. For, it is not covered by the 2006
Rules. Similarly, other benefits extended to the
dependants of the deceased government employee
in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5
including family pension, life insurance, provident
fund, etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be
allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be
paid to the dependants of the deceased government
employee, applying the principle expounded in Helen
C. Rebello v. Maharashtra3 and Patricia Jean
Mahajan [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia
Jean Mahajan4 cases.”
(emphasis applied)
13. The law on the issue is well settled that while
assessing compensation to which the family of the deceased or
an injured person would be entitled to, has to be just and fair.
There cannot be mathematical calculation. Even lesser amount of
compensation claimed does not bar the Tribunal or Court to award
just and fair compensation to the claimants, which may be higher
than what was claimed. The idea is not of unjust enrichment.
3 (1999) 1 SCC 90
4 (2002) 6 SCC 281
7
14. If with aforesaid touchstone, the facts of the case are
examined, keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), granting compensation to
the appellants, ignoring the factum of receipt of full salary of the
deceased-employee for a period of 12 years after his death, would
not be just and fair. However, the approach of the Tribunal was
also not correct, when it dismissed the Claim Petition by just
seeing the figures of the financial benefit which the family will get
under the 2006 Rules. It failed to appreciate the fact that there are
other factors/ heads also under which compensation is awarded,
future loss of income is one of them.
15. Very fairly, learned counsel for the insurance
company had stated before this Court that the company being not
aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court dated
17.02.2024 in FAO No.207 of 2013, in the earlier round of
litigation, had not preferred any appeal. It was only the claimants
who had approached this Court. Hence, it has no objection in
payment of that amount to the claimants.
16. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed.
The impugned order passed by the High Court is modified to the
extent that the appellants shall be entitled to receive
compensation as determined by the High Court vide order dated
17.02.2024 passed in FAO No.207 of 2013.
8
17. For payment of amount to the claimants, the direction
issued by this Court in Parminder Singh versus Honey Goyal
and Others5 be kept in view. Needful shall be done within six
weeks from the date on which bank account particulars are
furnished to the office of the Insurance Company.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
. . . . . . . . . ……..J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
. . . . . . . . ……… J.
[VIJAY BISHNOI]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 16, 2026.
5 2025 INSC 361: (2025) 9 SCC 539
9
ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.14 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21651/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-07-2023
in CR No. 2283/2022 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh]
UMA DHANKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MAHABIR ALIAS GOLIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
[FOR ADMISSION ]
Date : 16-02-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOIFor Petitioner(s) :Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Piyush Goel, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Vats, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Rana, Adv.
Mr. Yashdeep, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Anuj Kapoor, AOR
Mr. Shivom Sethi, Adv.
Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Adv.
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR
Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(KRITIKA TIWARI) (AKSHAY KUMAR BHORIA)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
{Signed order is placed on file}10