In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court addressed the methodology for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing that the salary of a deceased individual should be the basis for such calculations, not the salary of a family member appointed on compassionate grounds. This decision reinforces the principle that compensation aims to reflect the actual financial loss suffered by the dependents due to the untimely demise of the earning member.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around a tragic incident where Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, a junior engineer with the U.P. Power Corporation, lost his life in a road accident. While alighting from a bus, his leg got stuck, and the bus moved without noticing, leading to fatal injuries. His legal heirs initiated claim proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the loss.
The Tribunal awarded ₹12,85,000 along with 6% annual interest to the claimants. However, both the claimants and the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) challenged this award. UPSRTC contended that the bus involved did not operate on the route of the accident and highlighted the absence of a valid passenger ticket with the deceased. Conversely, the claimants argued for enhanced compensation, asserting that the Tribunal erroneously considered the salary of the deceased's son, appointed on compassionate grounds, instead of the deceased's actual salary.
Tribunal's Approach and High Court's Observations
The Tribunal, unable to verify the deceased's last salary slip of ₹54,143, relied on the son's salary of ₹20,000 for compensation calculation. The High Court found this approach legally unsustainable. Justice Abdul Moin emphasized that the son's salary, resulting from a compassionate appointment post the father's demise, could not equate to the deceased's earnings, especially considering the deceased's advanced career stage. The Court noted that the son's initial salary as a new appointee could not reflect the financial loss experienced by the family.
Furthermore, the Court addressed UPSRTC's defense, stating that the absence of a passenger ticket and the driver's omission of the accident in his statement did not invalidate the claim. The driver's name appeared in the police chargesheet, indicating his involvement, and no objections regarding the ticket were raised during earlier proceedings.
Legal Implications and Precedents
This judgment underscores the importance of accurately assessing the financial loss to dependents in motor accident cases. Relying on the salary of a family member appointed on compassionate grounds can lead to undercompensation and fails to reflect the actual economic impact of the deceased's loss.
The decision aligns with the principles established in previous rulings, such as the Supreme Court's judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, which provides guidelines for determining compensation based on the deceased's income, age, and other relevant factors.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court's ruling reaffirms the necessity of basing motor accident compensation on the deceased's actual earnings to ensure just and fair restitution for the dependents. By rejecting the use of a family member's salary, especially one appointed on compassionate grounds, the Court highlights the need for a realistic assessment of financial loss, thereby upholding the principles of equity and justice in compensation claims.
Court Practice Community
WhatsApp Group Invite
Join WhatsApp Community
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.