CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -1- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 RESHAM DEVI AND OTHERS VS RAJESH AND OTHERS Present: Mr. Praveen Kumar, DAG, Haryana for the review applicant/respondent No.3. Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the non-applicant/claimants/appellants. Mr. Divyam Suri, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. ** CM-12669-CII-2026 1. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for preponing the date of hearing of CM-11505- CII-2026 in CM-10435-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 which is fixed for 31.07.2026. 2. Notice in the application. 3. Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of non-applicants/claimants and contends that he has no objection if the matter is preponed. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application for preponing the date of hearing in the CM-11505-CII-2026 in CM-10435-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the hearing of the CM-11505-CII-2026 in CM-10435-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 is preponed to today itself. CM-12019-CII-2026 5. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -2- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 176 days in filing the review application. 6. Notice in the application. 7. Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of non-applicants/claimants and contends that he has no objection if the delay is condoned. 8. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. 9. The delay of 176 days in filing the review application is condoned. CM-10435-CII-2026 in RA-CR-91-2026 10. The present application has been filed by respondent No.4- Insurance Company seeking modification of judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court in FAO-2881-2009. 11. In the present application, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that vide award dated 19.01.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, respondent No.1 to 4 were held jointly and severely liable to satisfy the award. However, in paragraph No.16 of the judgment passed in FAO-4881-2009, only respondent No.4-Insurance Company was held liable to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation. 12. Further that the liability of the insurance company is only limited to a certain extent as per the terms of Special Contingency (Limited Liability) Policy. Therefore, paragraph No.16 is to be modified as per the award and on the ground of limited liability of the insurance company. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -3- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 13. For the reasons mentioned in the present modification application, the same is allowed and judgment dated 31.10.2025 is modified to the extent of liability fixed as per the award dated 19.01.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani. 14. Accordingly, para No.16 of judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed in FAO-2881-2009 is modified, which is to be read as under:- “16. Respondent No.1 to 4 are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation jointly and severely along with interest, with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the account of the appellants/claimants as per ratio settled in the award dated 19.01.2009. The appellants/claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal. ” RA-CR-91-2026 15. The present review application has been filed by respondent No.3 for reviewing the judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court in FAO-2881-2009. 16. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.3 contends that appellant No.1 (widow of the deceased) has received compensation under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter mentioned as 2006 Rules) which is not deducted from the amount of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This material fact was never disclosed by the appellants/ claimants before this court. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -4- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 17. Learned counsel appearing for applicant/respondent No.3 has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, 2016 (9) SCC 627, wherein, it has been categorically held that the amount received by the claimants under the 2006 Rules is liable to be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as permitting both benefits without adjustment would result in a double benefit to the claimants. Therefore, he prays that the amount received under the 2006 Rules is to be deducted from the compensation awarded in the present case. 18. Learned counsel for the non-applicants/claimants contends that this Court has rightly awarded the compensation and no amount is to be deducted from the same. Therefore, he prays that the present review application be dismissed. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. 20. A perusal of the record reveals that at the time of finally deciding of the appeal the claimants did not bring into notice of this Court whether or not the appellant No.1 (widow of deceased) has received the compensation under 2006 Rules. It goes without saying that Apex Court in Shashi Sharma’s case (supra) has already settled the issue and held that compensation granted under 2006 Rules is liable to be deducted from compensation as calculated under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Furthermore, recently in Sarla Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Doc ID #2907570, Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the extent of eligible MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -5- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 beneficiaries entitled to receive compensation under the 2006 Rules. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “Findings on Issue B 16. The High Court after assessing the amount of financial assistance payable to the Appellants under the 2006 Rules has omitted to consider the eligibility of the Appellant No.3 (mother), being one of the dependents under the Act. Rule 3 of the 2006 Rules stipulates that the eligibility to receive financial assistance would be determined as per the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "1964 Scheme"). Thus, before harping on the issue of eligibility of the "mother" under the 2006 Rules, we deem it apposite to refer to the definition of an "eligible family member" as provided under Para 4, sub-para (ii) and (iii) of the 1964 Scheme. The relevant extract of said provisions is as follows: "4 (ii) "Family" for the purposes of this scheme includes the following relatives of the officer:- (a) wife, in the case of a male officer; (b) husband, in the case of a female officer; (c) minor sons; (d) unmarried minor daughters; (e) widowed/legally divorced daughters; and (f) the parents of an unmarried officer. Note 1 :- Clauses (c) and (d) include children adopted legally before retirement. Note 2.- A judicially separated wife/husband does not loose her/his legal status of wife/husband of the Government employee and is thus eligible for the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. (iii) The pension is admissible- MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -6- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 (a) in the case of widow/widower upto the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier; (b) in the case of son/unmarried daughter until he/she attains the age of twenty five years; (c) in the case of parents who were wholly dependent on the Government employee when he/she was alive, upto the date of death provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child; (d) in the case of children in the order of their birth and younger of them will not eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him/her has become ineligible for grant of family pension; (e) in the case of divorced/widowed daughter till they are alive : Provided that an unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter will become ineligible for pension from the date of her marriage/remarriage: Provided further that the son/unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter shall become ineligible for pension if he or she starts earning livelihood." 17. Upon perusing Para 4, sub-para (ii) and (iii) of the 1964 Scheme, read analogously with the 2006 Rules, it is clear that Appellant No. 1 (widow) and Appellant No. 2 (daughter) are the eligible family members entitled to the ex-gratia financial assistance under the 2006 Rules. On the other hand, since it is evident that the parents only become entitled in case the deceased employee was unmarried or has not left behind his widow or any children, hence, the Appellant No. 3, being the mother of MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -7- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 the deceased, is not entitled to any financial assistance under the 2006 Rules.” 21. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the amount under the 2006 Rules has been received only by the widow of the deceased, who alone was the eligible beneficiary under the said Rules. Consequently, the deduction of the amount received under the 2006 Rules shall be effected only from her share of the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The respective shares of the remaining claimants shall remain unaltered. In view of the above, settled position of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashi Sharma’s case (supra) and Sarla Devi’s case (supra) the present review petition is hereby allowed. 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors., 2020 SCC Online SC 28 explained the way in which the financial assistance receivable by the dependants of the deceased from the government should be deducted. Relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:- “22. Considering the above, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled for compensation to be reckoned on the basis of loss of dependency, due to loss of gross salary (less tax amount, if any) of the deceased and future prospects and deduction of only one-third (⅓ rd) amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. As regards the multiplier '13' applied by the Tribunal and the High Court, the same needs no interference. As a result, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the amount payable towards compensation will have to be recalculated on the following basis:- MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -8- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 Loss of dependency due to loss of income calculated at L 31,26,229.60/- [(Rs.23,123/- x 12 x 13) + (30% future prospects) - (⅓ rd deduction for personal expenses)]. In addition, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of L 70,000/- towards conventional heads in terms of dictum in paragraph 59.8 of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, a total sum of L 31,96,230/- (Rupees thirty-one lakhs ninety-six thousand two hundred thirty only), as rounded off, is payable to the claimants. However, this amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment, will be payable subject to the outcome of the application made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the competent authority for grant of financial assistance under the 2006 Rules. If that application is allowed and the amount becomes payable towards financial assistance under the said Rules to the specified legal representatives of the deceased, commensurate amount will have to be deducted from the compensation amount alongwith interest component thereon. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, can be permitted to withdraw the compensation amount only upon filing of an affidavit- cum-declaration before the executing Court that they have not received nor would claim any amount towards financial assistance under the 2006 Rules and if already received or to be received in future on that account, the amount so received will be disclosed to the executing Court, which will have to be deducted from the compensation amount determined in terms of this order. The compensation amount, therefore, be paid to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 subject to the above and upon MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -9- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 giving an undertaking before the executing Court to indemnify the insurance company (appellant) to that extent.” 23. Accordingly, the following paragraph is hereby added as Para No.15(a) in judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed in FAO-2881-2009:- “15(a). Appellant No.1 (widow) is directed to furnish affidavit of receipt of amount of compensation under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 before Executing Court. Learned Executing Court is further directed to calculate the total amount of compensation along with interest @9% per annum as per the judgment passed by this Court and thereafter, deduct the amount as specified by appellant No.1 (widow of the deceased) from the share of compensation granted to her as per award dated 19.01.2009 which ratio is upheld by this Court. It is furthermore clarified that compensation awarded under 2006 Rules is to be deducted from the share of appellant No.1 only as per judgment of Apex Court in Sarla Devi’s case (supra). It is made clear that the ratio in which the amount of compensation is granted to the other claimants will remain the same.” 24. Consequently, the review application stands allowed. 25. In view of the above, judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court in FAO-2881-2009 is modified to the extent of addition of para 15(a) in the judgment. 26. This order be read as part of judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court in FAO-2881-2009. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-12019-CII-2026; CM-12018-CII-2026 CM-12020-CII-2026; RA-CR-91-2026 (O&M) -10- CM-12669-CII-2026; CM-12670-CII-2026 in FAO-2881-2009 27. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. July 10th, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE MOHD AYUB 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.