The Allahabad High Court recently held that the salary of a son appointed on compassionate grounds after his father's death cannot be considered as the deceased's salary while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The case arose after Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, a Junior Engineer with U.P. Power Corporation, tragically died in a road accident on September 6, 2007. He was getting off a bus when his leg got stuck in the door. Without noticing, the bus driver moved the vehicle, dragging Srivastava, who later succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.
His legal heirs filed a claim, which was initially disputed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). The Corporation denied the incident, arguing that the bus was not operating on the route where the accident occurred and that no bus ticket was found with the deceased. Despite these claims, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹12,85,000 along with 6% annual interest to the family.
UPSRTC challenged the award, insisting that the accident did not happen with their bus and pointing out the absence of a ticket. They also mentioned that the bus driver's testimony did not clearly confirm the accident. However, the Court found that the driver’s name appeared in the police charge sheet, which implicated him in the accident.
Quoting the Hon'ble Court:
"Strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible for the claimants. They only need to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability."
The Court cited various precedents, including Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, emphasizing that claimants are not required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Regarding compensation, the Court noted that the Tribunal had wrongly based the deceased's salary on his son’s income of ₹20,000 per month. His son had only recently joined service through compassionate appointment, whereas the deceased was a senior employee with a last drawn salary of ₹54,143 per month.
Read Also:-Supreme Court Directs Allahabad HC to Expedite Landlord-Tenant Cases Where Trial Is Stayed
Justice Abdul Moin remarked:
“The analogy adopted by the learned Tribunal in order to arrive at the salary of the deceased is not legally sustainable. The salary of a young employee newly appointed cannot be compared with that of an experienced officer at the end of his service.”
Due to this error, the Court remitted the case back to the Tribunal, instructing it to reassess the compensation strictly according to law and the actual earnings of the deceased. The Tribunal was directed to complete this process within six months.
The Court also allowed the claimants to withdraw the partial compensation already deposited, pending the final determination by the Tribunal.
This judgment ensures that rightful compensation is awarded based on the deceased’s actual earnings, securing justice for bereaved families without penalizing them for administrative errors.
Case Title: Uttar Pradesh State Rd. Transport Corp. Faizabad v. Smt. Meena Srivastava And Ors [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 602 of 2011]
