Transport Allowance Forms Part of Taxable Income for Computing Loss of Dependency in Motor Accident Claims

The Appellant Insurance Company challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award dated 29th November 2017, arising from a fatal accident involving Sadhna Sachdeva on 6th July 2015.

The deceased was an employee of the Office of the District and Sessions Judge.

The Appellant contested the benchmark income, the inclusion of transport allowance, and the 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses, arguing that the deceased's two adult sons (aged 20½ and 23½) were not fully dependent and the husband was an earning member.

One son was a student, while the other had started working in a private company a year after the accident.

1. Whether the benchmark income should be based on the salary slip of the month of the accident (July 2015) or the preceding month.

2. Whether transport allowance should be excluded from the gross income for calculating loss of dependency.

3. Whether a deduction of 1/3rd or 1/2 towards personal and living expenses is appropriate given the financial status of the legal heirs.

The Court applied Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing "just compensation" based on fairness and reasonableness.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to standardize the calculation of future prospects and ensure awards are not "windfalls".

Regarding personal expense deductions, the Court followed Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009), which establishes that compensation must be equitable and establishes guidelines for dependency deductions.

It further applied United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) regarding the permissible heads for non-pecuniary damages.

The Court upheld the benchmark income of Rs. 83,823/-, noting the July 2015 salary slip was sufficient proof of eligibility.

Regarding transport allowance, the Court rejected the Appellant’s objection, citing established precedents that treat such allowances as part of taxable income for the family's benefit.

However, the Court found merit in the Appellant's argument on dependency. Evidence showed the elder son was earning Rs. 22,000/- shortly after the accident and the husband was a high-earning employee of Indian Bank.

Consequently, the Court determined that the claimants were only partially dependent, necessitating a higher deduction of 1/2 (instead of 1/3rd) for the deceased's personal expenses.

The Court also regularized non-pecuniary heads—removing "loss of love and affection" and increasing "loss of consortium" to cover four claimants—as per Pranay Sethi standards.

The Court directed the Appellant to deposit the balance of the revised amount with 9% interest within four weeks, to be released to the claimants as per the original apportionment. The statutory deposit is to be refunded to the Insurance Company upon compliance.