Full Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5490-5491 OF 2025
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC …APPELLANT
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5490-5491
1. Civil Appeal No. 5490-5491 of 2025 arises from the impugned judgment and order dated 10.06.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in MFA NO. 2593 Of 2020 C/W MFA.NO. 3299 Of 2020 wherein the High Court partly allowed the appeals by modifying the Tribunal’s order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has Preferred the present appeal.
2. On 30.07.2018, the deceased P. Visweswar was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-01-JA-0746. When he reached near Bharath Petrol Bunk, Murakambattu, Chittor, a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-F-1126, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came to the wrong side and dashed against the deceased’s motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. The claimants thereupon filed a Claim petition MVC No. 4788/2018 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Bengaluru, claiming ₹1,00,00,000 as compensation along with interest. The claimants averred that the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident and was employed as a team manager at Accenture, Bangalore and was earning ₹ 70,000-/ per month. The Tribunal after careful consideration held that the bus driver was negligent and assessed compensation at ₹ 69,07,710 and deducted ₹ 35,48,000-/ (group insurance amount) and granted award for ₹33,59,710 with 6% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the tribunal’s judgment, an appeal was preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. High Court after setting aside the deductions made by tribunal under the employee group insurance, granted a compensation of ₹ 69,07,710-/ to the claimants. challenging the said order the appellants/KSRTC preferred these appeals.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CIVIL APPEAL NO’S.5492-5493
3. This set of appeals arise from the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in MFA NO. 9538 Of 2017 wherein the High Court reassessed the compensation at ₹59,95,944 with 6% interest, setting aside the deduction of ₹10 lakh (group insurance), and directed the insurer to deposit the amount. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has Preferred the present appeals.
4. On 20.01.2015, at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased Celestine Dsouza was proceeding on her Honda Activa bearing registration No. KA- 03/EL-6810, near Johnson Market Junction, Hosur Lashkar Road, Bengaluru, at that time, a bus bearing registration No.ΚΑ-22/B-7817,being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased's motorcycle from backside. As a result, the deceased fell on the ground and the bus ran over her leading to her death. The legal representatives of the deceased filed MVC No. 1178/2015 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Bengaluru, claiming ₹75,00,000 as compensation. It was averred that the deceased was aged about 47 years at the time of accident and was employed with M/s Cox and King Ltd., as Assistant Manager and was earning ₹ 47,000/- per month. The Tribunal after careful consideration held the bus driver was negligent and assessed compensation ₹63,04,878. The tribunal deducted an amount ₹10,00,000 which was received by the claimants under an employee Group Insurance Scheme provided by the employer, And the tribunal awarded compensation of ₹53,04,878 with interest at 7.5% per annum to the claimants. Aggrieved thereby, both the parties preferred their respective appeals before the High Court. Wherein, the High Court modified the award of the tribunal and fixed the compensation at ₹ 59,95,944-/ without any deductions under the employee group insurance. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is Preferred by the appellant/insurance company.
SUBMISSIONS
5. It is pertinent to note that the present set of appeals though rest on separate facts, the underlying issue in both the appeals is whether the Tribunal was Right in deducting the amount received towards Group insurance?
6. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals contended that the deceased scooter rider contributed to the accident. They relied on motor vehicle inspection reports and accident site evidence and contended a percentage of compensation should be reduced due to contributory negligence.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the claimants had already received monetary benefits from another source, such as employer-provided insurance scheme or group insurance benefits, Therefore, the same amount should be deducted from the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also submitted that a claimant should not gain twice from the same accident and The High Court wrongly calculated the compensation without deductions.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents in both the Appeals Contended that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus drivers in the respective cases and relied upon F.I.R, Charge sheet, spot sketch & witnesses testimony. It was further contended that evidence on Record reveal that both the accidents are due to negligence of Respective bus drivers
9. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that insurance benefits or employer benefits are independent of motor accident compensation, therefore they cannot be deducted from compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was submitted that the High Court carefully assessed evidence and compensation was calculated according to settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
ANALYSIS
10. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for both the appeals and examined the impugned judgments. The question that falls for our consideration is Whether the compensation receivable by the claimant through the security of Group Insurance Scheme provided by the employer securing for the employee without his (employee) contribution arising from the same incident i.e. motor accident be allowed to be deducted or not.
11. In Civil Appeal NO’S.5492-5493 appellant pointed out certain procedural lapses particularly for not adding driver as a party. Both tribunal and High court not accepted the said contention. This court in Rajo Devi & Anr. Etc. Vs Manjeet Kaur & Ors 1 speaking through one of us (P.B Varale J) observed thus “it must be kept in mind that the provision of providing compensation to the injured/dependants in accident cases under Motor Vehicles 2025 INSC 741 Act, 1988 is a beneficial provision to enhance social justice. Accordingly, the rigours of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in such cases is summary in nature”.
12. In view of the proposition laid down in above the tribunal and the High court rightly discarded procedural objection of appellant
13. This court in Helen C. Rebello & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation[2] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors.[3] held thus:
14. Further this court in the matter of Sebastiani Lakra vs National Insurance Co.Ltd[4] on the issue of the deduction held as follows:
15. On the analysis of the above decisions of this court deductions ordered by the tribunals in both the cases is not correct and modifying the said finding by the High court is to be accepted. (2019)17SCC465 Conclusion
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, and in light of the settled principles laid down by this Court in Helen C. Rebello(Supra), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Sebastiani Lakra (Supra), It is clear that amounts received by the dependants of the deceased under employer-provided group insurance or other contractual or social security benefits cannot be treated as “pecuniary advantages” liable to be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such benefits arise out of an independent contractual relationship and lack the requisite nexus with the statutory compensation payable for death in a motor vehicle accident. The principle of balancing loss and gain cannot therefore be invoked to diminish the statutory entitlement of the claimants to just compensation.
17. Accordingly, we find no grounds to interfere with the approach adopted by the High Court in both matters in setting aside the deductions made by the Tribunal towards the group insurance amounts and in reassessing the compensation payable to the claimants. The impugned judgments of the High Court are consistent with the settled jurisprudence governing motor accident compensation and warrant no interference by this Court.
18. Consequently, the present appeals fail and are dismissed. The judgments and orders passed by the High Court in MFA NO. 2593 of 2020 c/w MFA No. 3299 of 2020 and MFA No. 9538 of 2017 are affirmed. The appellants shall comply with the directions contained therein and ensure deposit of the awarded compensation, if not already deposited, as directed by the High Court, the same be deposited within six weeks from the date of the judgments and order of this court. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. This Court places on record its appreciation to the learned Counsel Sri. Rohit Sharma for his valuable assistance as Amicus Curiae.
20. In view of the above, Civil Appeal No(s). 5490-5491 of 2025 and Civil Appeal No(s). 5492-5493 of 2025 are disposed of ......................................... J. [PANKAJ MITHAL] ......................................... J. [PRASANNA B. VARALE] NEW DELHI; MARCH 16, 2026.