Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Hajira Bano And Others on 5 August, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Mac App No. 28/2023
Reserved on: .30.07.2026
Pronounced on: 05.08.2026
Uploaded on: 05.08.2026
Whether the operative part or Full
Judgment is Pronounced: Full.
United India Insurance Company Limited
.....Appellant(s)
Through: Ms. Rifat Khalida, Advocate
V/s
Hajira Bano and others
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms Sabeena Naveed, Sr. Advocate with
Ms Shaila Rasool, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The Insurance Company, appellant, has filed this appeal seeking to set
aside the Award dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, in case titled Mst Hajira and others v. Sajad
Ah. Bangroo and others, whereby, the claim petition preferred by the
respondents for awarding compensation in their favour being the
dependents of a 37 years old lady Ms Aaliya Ali Mir D/o Ali
Mohammad W/o Dr. Muzafar-ul-Sultan R/o Wanbal Rawalpora
Srinagar, who died in a motor accident on 22.08.2015, has been allowed
and the appellant has been saddled with the liability to pay
compensation of Rs. 97,39,525/- along with simple interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of presentation of claim till its final realization.
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The deceased, Aaliya aged about 37 years at the time of the accident,
was working as a Lecturer in DIET, Pampore, Pulwama, drawing a gross
monthly salary of Rs. 53986/- as deposed by the Principal, DIET
Pampore and the Branch Incharge United India Insurance Company. On
22.08.2015, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle (TATA
407 LP-Bus) bearing registration No. JK01N 5927 towards Dodpathri
and upon reaching Khansahib, the driver of the vehicle lost control over
the vehicle which turned turtle, the deceased sustained fatal injuries on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle owned by respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal and insured with
the appellant-Insurance Company vide Policy No.
1114033114P147590975 which was valid as on the date of the accident.
3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence,
returned a finding that the accident occurred solely on account of the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and that
finding has attained finality, not having been assailed before this Court.
The sole controversy raised in this appeal pertains to the quantum of
compensation awarded viz. the seven years.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company does not dispute
the multiplicand, the multiplier of 15 applied in view of the age of the
deceased (37 years), or the addition of 50% towards future prospects,
keeping in mind the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 2 of 11
(2017) 16 SCC 680. The limited grievance urged is that the deceased
being a Lecturer in the DIET Pampore, Pulwama, a Government run
Institution, the respondents/claimants, on account of the death-cum-
retirement service benefits extended by the employer, have continued to
or might receive the full salary of the deceased for a period of seven (7)
years after her death, and that this amount, having accrued to the
dependents as a direct consequence of the death, ought to have been
deducted from the compensation payable, failing which the claimants
would stand unjustly enriched with a double benefit for the very same
loss of dependency.
5. It is accordingly submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in law in
not adverting to this aspect and in failing to deduct the said amount
while computing the compensation payable, and that the Award to that
extent deserves to be set aside/modified.
6. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel referred to and relied
upon the law laid down in the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court
in cases titled Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Shashi Sharma &
Ors; reported as AIR 2016 SC 4465; Krishna & Ors., v. Tek Chand &
Ors., reported as 2024 Livelaw (SC) 116; Reliance General Insurance
Company v. Kanika reported as 2026 Livelaw (SC) 196; National
Insurance Company Ltd., v. Purna Devi and others reported as
AIRONLINE 2020 J&K 458 and judgment of this Court delivered in case
titled Nasima Begum v. National Insurance Company Limited and others
bearing CMAM No. 116/2017 decided on 20.03.2019 read with its
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 3 of 11
review petition bearing RPC no. 04/2019 [RP no. 15/2019] decided on
03.07.2021.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants supports the
impugned Award and submits that the payment of salary/family pension
or any compassionate benefit extended by the employer of the deceased
to her dependents is referable to an independent service/statutory
relationship between the employer and the deceased, has no correlation
whatsoever with the tortuous liability of the owner and Insurer of the
offending vehicle, and cannot be permitted to be set off against the
compensation payable for the loss of dependency occasioned by the
accident. It is submitted that the law on this point is well settled and does
not admit of any different view.
8. The learned senior counsel also referred to SRO 391 of 1983 to indicate
that the full salary that was being made available to the dependents of
the employee dying in harness has ceased to exist in terms of Rule 20
(bb) inserted in the CSR vide SRO 391 dated 15.7.1983.
9. The learned senior counsel for the respondents/ claimants referred to and
relied upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in case titled
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors,
reported as MANU/SC/0606/2009
ANALYSIS:
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the Tribunal,
including the impugned Award and considered the submissions made.
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 4 of 11
11. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the
salary/family pension or other terminal or compassionate benefits paid
by the employer of the deceased to her dependents, consequent upon her
death, are liable to be deducted from the compensation awarded under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the loss of dependency suffered on
account of the accident.
12. In the present case, the receipt of the benefit of salary for seven years is
disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants. The
learned senior counsel would submit that no such benefit is available to
the respondents/ claimants in terms of the Rules. She would submit that
the dependents of the deceased are only entitled to receive enhanced
pension and not salary as claimed by the learned counsel for the
appellant and such enhanced pension is independent of the compensation
granted in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act.
13. It is by now well settled that compensation payable under the Motor
Vehicles Act is in the nature of pecuniary damages for the loss of
dependency caused to the family of the deceased by reason of a wrongful
act, namely, the accident caused by the negligence of the offending
vehicle. The liability of the owner and the Insurer to pay such
compensation arises independently of, and is unconnected with, any
benefit that the dependents may receive from source collateral to the
tortfeasor, such as the employer of the deceased.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra
SRTC, (1998) 1 SCC 90, has authoritatively held that amounts received
by the dependents of a deceased from sources such as provident fund,
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 5 of 11
pension, insurance and the like are not liable to be deducted from the
compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, as such amounts
do not flow from the tortfeasor but accrue to the dependents by virtue of
a separate contractual or statutory relationship, and are intended to
benefit the dependents in addition to, and not in substitution of, the
compensation payable for the accidental death.
15. This principle has been consistently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, including in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, (2013) 7 SCC 476,
wherein it was held that family pension is a statutory benefit flowing
from the rules governing the service of the deceased and cannot be
equated with compensation payable for the wrongful act of the
tortfeasor; the source and object of the two payments being entirely
distinct, one cannot be set off against the other.
16. Applying the aforesaid settled position, the fact that the employer of the
deceased, out of its own service rules or compassionate policy, chose to
continue paying the salary of the deceased to her dependents for a period
of seven years, which however does not appear to be correct as no Rule
has been shown or placed on record by the appellant in this behalf, does
not alter the character of that payment. Such payment is referable to the
conditions of service between the deceased and her employer and is
collateral to, and independent of, the wrong committed by the driver of
the offending vehicle. It cannot, therefore, be permitted to reduce the
liability of the tortfeasor, namely, the Insurer of the offending vehicle,
who is obliged to make good the loss of dependency, regardless of any
benefit the dependents may receive from an independent, collateral
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 6 of 11
source. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, thus,
does not hold good and is unsustainable. To hold otherwise would be to
allow the appellant to take advantage of the statutory/contractual benefit
flowing to the dependents from a source wholly unconnected with the
accident, thereby indirectly reducing its own liability towards the victims
of the vehicular accident, a result which the law does not countenance.
17. The position does not get changed even if the plea/submission of the
learned counsel is considered in light of the applicable service rules as
well. The Rule position, governing the subject, therefore, is desirable in
the first instance. Rule 20 (bb) referred to by the learned senior counsel
as inserted in CSR vide SRO 391 dated 15.7.1983 is taken note of
herein:
“20 (b)….(bb) Where a Government servant dies while in
service on or after 1-1-1983 after having rendered not
less than 7 years continuous service, the rate of family
pension payable to the family of the deceased shall be
equal to 50 per cent of the pay last drawn or twice the
family pension admissible under sub-rule (ii) (aaa)
whichever is less and the amount so admissible shall be
payable from the date following the date of death of the
Government servant for a period of seven years or for a
period up to the date on which the deceased Government
servant would have attained the age of 62 years had he
survived, whichever is less. The pension payable
thereafter will be at the rates laid down in sub-rule (ii)
(aaa).”
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 7 of 11
18. Subsequently, the Government has issued SRO 310 of 1986 dated
8.5.1986, whereby, Rule 20 (bbb) was introduced which provides as
under:
“20 (b)….(bb)….(bbb) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-clause (bb) above, where a Government
servant dies while in service after having rendered not
less than seven years continuous service, the rate of
family pension admissible to the beneficiary of the
deceased shall be equal to the pay last drawn by the
deceased officer before his death. Pension at the
enhanced rates equal to the last pay shall be payable for
a period of seven years from the date following the death
of the Government servant or for period up to the date on
which the deceased Government servant would have
attained the age of superannuation whichever is earlier.
After having drawn family pension at such enhanced
rates, it will be allowed at the rate equal to 50% of pay
last drawn or twice the family pension admissible as per
sub-rule (ii) (aaa) whichever is less and the amount so
admissible shall be payable for a period of seven years
from the date the payment of enhanced pension as per
preceeding para ceases or till the deceased would have
attained the age of 62 years whichever is earlier.
Thereafter, the family pension will be payable at the
ordinary rates laid down in sub-rule (ii) (aaa).
These rules shall be deemed to have come into effect from
1-1-1986.”
19. Thereafter, one more SRO was issued i.e., SRO 94 of 2009 dated
15.4.2009, which mandated as follows:
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 8 of 11
“8. The following shall be inserted as proviso to clause
(c ) of Rule 20 below Note- 4 of the Family-Pension-cum-
Gratuity Rules (Schedule XV) :
Provided that in respect of a Government servant who
may die while in service on or after 1.7.2009 after having
rendered not less than seven years continuous service,
the family pension on enhanced rates equal to 50% of the
last pay drawn shall be payable to the family of the
Government servant from the date of death of the
Government servant for a period of ten years without any
upper age limit. Thereafter, the family pension shall be
payable at the ordinary rates.
Note:- Cases already settled in terms of the rules in force
immediately before 1.7.2009 shall not be re-opened.”
20. Having regard to the Rule position, as taken note of hereinbefore, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case is covered by the
provisions of SRO 94 of 2009 dated 15.4.2009, which provides that
beneficiaries of the deceased Government servant shall be paid enhanced
family pension @ 50% of the last pay drawn for a period of ten years
and not the full salary for a period of seven years, as is being projected
by the learned counsel for the appellant, as the deceased Government
employee, in the instant case, had died in the year 2015. Thus the refuge
being sought by the learned counsel for the appellant in SRO 310 of
1986 dated 8.5.1986, though having not been specifically referred to, is
of no help to the appellants. Similarly, the SRO 391 of 1983 dated
15.7.1983, is also held to be not applicable for having outlived its life by
the time the deceased Government employee, in the instant case, has
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 9 of 11
died and SRO 94 of 2009 dated 15.4.2009 had come into effect and was
governing the field.
21. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the approach of the learned
Tribunal in declining to deduct the amount of compensation on account
of alleged salary likely to be received by the respondents/claimants from
the employer of the deceased while computing the compensation
payable. The contention urged on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company is accordingly rejected.
22. As regards the computation of compensation, the deceased was aged 37
years at the time of her death, and in view of Pranay Sethi (supra), the
Tribunal has correctly applied a multiplier of 15 and granted an addition
of 50% towards future prospects on the established monthly income of
Rs. 53988/-. After deducting 1/4th as the living expenses of the
dependents, having regard to the number of dependents, the annual and
total loss of dependency has been correctly worked out. The husband
having remarried, this court finds that except for the spousal consortium,
the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium
(parental/filial) and funeral expenses, have also been correctly awarded
in terms of the ratio prescribed in Pranay Sethi (supra). This Court does
not find the quantum awarded by the Tribunal to be either excessive or
arbitrary; on the contrary, it is a just and fair estimate of the loss of
dependency suffered by the respondents/claimants, arrived at strictly in
accordance with settled principles. The Tribunal is seen to have taken
care of every aspect fairly and deductions made appear to be quite just.
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 10 of 11
CONCLUSION
23. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no merit in the appeal.
The Award dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, in Claim Petition No. MACP/349/2018,
granting compensation of Rs. 97, 39, 525/- (Rupees Ninety-Seven Lakh
thirty nine thousand five hundred and twenty five only) with interest @
6% per annum, is hereby upheld except for the modification made in
respect of the spousal consortium.
24. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the
impugned award. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-
Insurance Company towards the statutory pre-deposit under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, together with accrued interest, shall be
released in favour of the respondents/claimants, in the proportion and
manner indicated in the impugned Award upon their identification by the
learned senior counsel for the respondents/ claimants. The share of the
younger daughter, who appears to be minor even as on date, shall be
kept in the FDR till she attains the age of majority.
25. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
05.08.2026
Mohammad Yaseen, PS
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes.
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
MAC APP No. 28/2023 Page 11 of 11
