The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the High Court in light of the fact that it failed to follow the dictum of the Apex Court and followed a contrary judgment of the High Court. The same was held to be in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

The matter at hand revolved around the compensation payable under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “We cannot but observe that we are surprised that the High Court despite noticing a judgment of this Court, in the impugned judgment, failed to follow the dictum and followed a contrary judgment of the High Court itself; which is per-se in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.”

Advocate Abhishek Gola represented the Appellant.

Arguments

It was the case of the Insurance Company that despite noticing the decision in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma (2016), the High Court ignored the dictum and followed the judgment of that High Court in Kamla Devi v. Sahib Singh & Ors (2017).

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that the High Court had deducted only 50% of the compensation under the Rules of 2006 from the amounts awarded in the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Bench took note of the submission of the counsel for the Insurance Company that the question arising was no longer res-integra but the High Court awarded compensation without deducting the compensation payable under the Rules of 2006.

The Apex Court referred to its judgment in Shashi Sharma Case (Supra), wherein it has been held that the Rules don’t enable the dependents of the deceased Government employee to claim a similar amount from the tortfeasor or Insurance Company because of the accidental death of the deceased Government employee.

Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment impugned to the extent it deducted only 50% of the compensation payable under the Rules of 2006. The Bench also held that there was a violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India by the High Court in failing to follow the dictum of the Apex Court and following a contrary judgment of the High Court itself.

Cause Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Sharma and Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 469)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Abhishek Gola, AOR Viresh B. Saharya

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.