Facts
On May 4, 2007, a head-on collision occurred near Aligarh between a Maruti Wagon R and a UPSRTC bus insured by the Appellant.
Source reference: p.1-2The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) found the bus driver solely negligent and awarded Rs. 64,51,000 with 9% interest to the claimants.
Source reference: p.1The deceased was an "Assistant Manager" at Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Source reference: p.4The Insurance Company appealed the award on grounds of negligence, the inclusion of variable pay in income, and the percentage of future prospects granted.
Source reference: p.2, 4, 5During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent No. 1 (widow) expired.
Source reference: p.11Issues
1. Whether the MACT erred in holding the bus driver solely negligent for the accident in the absence of a road divider.
Source reference: p.22. Whether variable pay and incentives should be included in the calculation of the deceased's income.
Source reference: p.43. Whether a private sector employee with regular increments and "full-time regular" status qualifies as holding a "permanent job" for the purpose of awarding 30% future prospects under the Pranay Sethi guidelines.
Source reference: p.5-6Law Applied
The court applied the principle of "preponderance of probability" for determining negligence in claim proceedings.
Source reference: p.4Regarding income, it relied on Manorma Sinha v. Divisional Manager (2025) and Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2024), which establish that incentives and variable pay must be included in the income.
Source reference: p.4For future prospects, the court followed National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which mandates a 30% addition for deceased persons aged 40–50 holding "permanent jobs".
Source reference: p.6It further adopted the interpretation from Anjum Ansari v. R. Rajesh Rao (2024), clarifying that "permanent job" status is not exclusive to government servants but includes private employees with periodic salary revisions and inbuilt increments.
Source reference: p.7-10Reasoning
Regarding negligence, the court found that the bus, as a heavy vehicle, was driving in the middle of the road instead of the left lane, as admitted by the driver (R4W1) and supported by the site plan.
Source reference: p.2-3On the issue of income, the court rejected the appellant's plea to exclude variable pay, noting that salary records (Ex. PW2/2) and Form 16 confirmed these were part of the deceased's earnings.
Source reference: p.4Regarding future prospects, the court analyzed the deceased’s employment records at Bharti Airtel Ltd., which categorized him as a "full-time regular" employee and showed consistent salary hikes (from Rs. 3,60,000 to Rs. 5,58,761 over two years) and the grant of ESOPs.
Source reference: p.5-6The court reasoned that the "certainty" of income growth in such private employment mirrors the "permanent job" criteria in Pranay Sethi, distinguishing it from "fixed salary" employment where only 25% prospects would apply.
Source reference: p.8-10Holding
The Court held that: (1) the bus driver was solely negligent; (2) variable pay is a component of income; and (3) the deceased held a "permanent job," justifying 30% future prospects.
The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the MACT award, and directed the release of the balance amount to the claimants.
Source reference: p.10, 11Following the death of Respondent No. 1, her share was ordered to be distributed equally among the surviving legal heirs (Respondents 2–4).
Source reference: p.11Original Court PDF
The Oriental Insurance Co LtdvsSneha Lata & Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in