RANCHI, India, Dec. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Nov. 19:

1. Appellant company is in appeal against the liability being fixed on it to pay compensation under Section 166 of the M.V Act for the death of its employee in a motor vehicle accident, whereas cross-objection is for enhancement of compensation amount.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute that Indrawati Devi died in a motor vehicle accident involving Bus bearing Registration No. JH02D0354 leaving behind her legal heirs who are the claimants in the present case.

3. The registered owner of the said bus was the appellant Company and the vehicle was not insured. Consequently, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation against the appellant Company under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for a sum of Rs.50,62,075 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant in M. A. No. 191 of 2020 that it will amount to double jeopardy for the appellant-Company, to saddle it with liability to pay compensation, when compassionate appointment to claimant no. 3- Jai Shankar Patel who is the son of the deceased has been given.

5. Reliance in this regard is placed in (2008) 11 SCC 366 (Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Aggarwal (Smt) and Ors.) wherein it has been held that the benefits which the claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. The claimant in that case among other things was given compassionate appointment immediately after the accident. These factors were not considered by the Tribunal and consequently, the order was set aside and instead a lump sum fixed compensation of Rs. 5 Lakh was allowed. Further, it is argued that in (2017) 13 SCC 547 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rekhaben & Ors.), it has been held that in cases where the vehicle is insured and the employer has granted compassionate appointment, in that event Insurance Company cannot escape liability from paying compensation. This authority is distinguishable from the earlier authority, as here the vehicle is not insured, therefore, the compensation is to be paid by the appellant Company. 6. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant has been repelled by learned counsel for the claimants by relying on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 13668-13669 of 2024 (Balwinder Kaur Vs. Punjab State through its Secretary & Anr.) wherein it has been held that 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. This Court also in Misc. Appeal No. 245 of 2022 has taken the view that compassionate appointment after death cannot be a ground to denial of compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d5KnJyy%2BejNPBsmY%2BWc1%2FXUpy%2Bpavn2Gr10W32L4%2FUQP&caseno=MA/191/2020&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010144712020&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.