Salary allowances and future prospects are includible in dependency calculations for private employees with periodic increments.

On December 27, 2011, Mr. Sachin Yadav, a 28-year-old qualified engineer, died after his motorcycle was struck from behind by a UPSRTC bus.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded the claimants Rs. 32,03,820 with 9% interest, holding the driver and owner liable as the vehicle was uninsured.

UPSRTC appealed the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation, while the claimants cross-appealed for enhancement.

The owner contended that the bus was not involved and the driver was falsely implicated by a mob.

Evidence included testimony from the deceased’s brother-in-law (PW-1), HR records showing a monthly salary of Rs. 16,044 (PW-2), and the Mechanical Inspection Report.

1. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the UPSRTC bus driver.

2. Whether allowances such as HRA, transport, and special allowances should be included in the "actual salary" for calculating dependency.

3. Whether a permanent employee in a private firm is entitled to 50% future prospects under the "permanent job" category.

4. Whether the claimants are entitled to separate compensation for "loss of love and affection" in addition to "loss of consortium".

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding fault-based liability.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which standardized future prospects (50% for those under 40 with permanent jobs) and conventional heads (Funeral: Rs. 15,000; Estate: Rs. 15,000; Consortium: Rs. 40,000).

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, which ruled that "loss of love and affection" is subsumed under "loss of consortium".

Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Company and Kavita Devi v. Sunil Kumar, establishing that HRA and other allowances regularly received for the family's benefit must be included in the income.

Regarding negligence, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding based on the "preponderance of probabilities."

It credited PW-1’s eyewitness testimony, noting his statement was recorded immediately after the accident and the bus showed damage in the MIR.

The Court rejected the driver’s defense of false implication, noting the absence of a protest petition against the criminal charges.

On income, the Court corrected the Tribunal’s deduction of transport allowance, holding per Meenakshi that HRA and other perks support the family and form part of the benchmark income, revising it to Rs. 16,044.

The Court affirmed the 50% future prospects, reasoning that the deceased held a stable private job with periodic increments, which qualifies as a "permanent job" under Pranay Sethi and subsequent interpretations.

The Court adjusted the conventional heads, removing the "love and affection" award and instead granting "loss of consortium" to all four dependents.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 32,03,812 to Rs. 33,22,012, specifically awarding Rs. 31,32,012 for loss of dependency, Rs. 1,60,000 for consortium (4 members), and Rs. 15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court partially allowed the claimants' appeal, dismissed the owner's appeal, maintained the 9% interest rate, and directed UPSRTC to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,18,200 within four weeks.