Transport Allowances and Future Prospects Must Be Included in Motor Accident Dependency Computations

On November 3, 2007, Virender Kumar Vashisht was killed after his motorcycle was struck by a CRPF bus (UP-16G-0142) driven by Sanjay Kumar near Jharoda, Delhi

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 8,14,829/- with 7.5% interest, finding the driver negligent based on eye-witness testimonies

The CRPF and the driver appealed challenging the identity of the vehicle and the finding of negligence, particularly noting the driver’s discharge in criminal proceedings

The claimants filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation based on revised judicial guidelines

1. Whether the involvement and negligence of the offending vehicle were sufficiently established despite discrepancies in witness testimonies and the driver's discharge in criminal court

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement in light of current precedents regarding future prospects, multiplier application, and non-pecuniary heads

The court applied the "preponderance of probability" standard applicable to motor accident claims, noting that criminal court outcomes are not determinative of negligence in civil claims

Regarding quantification, it relied on National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to determine future prospects (40% for deceased under 40) and standard amounts for funeral expenses and loss of estate (Rs. 15,000 each)

It applied United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) to grant spousal consortium while deleting "love and affection"

For income calculation, it followed Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2024), which mandates that transport allowance cannot be deducted from the salary to arrive at the dependency factor

Finally, it used Sarla Verma v. DTC (via Pranay Sethi) to apply a multiplier of 17 based on the deceased's age (27) rather than the parent's age

The Court dismissed the CRPF’s challenge, reasoning that while witnesses PW3 and PW5 gave slightly different accounts of the bus color, they remained consistent on the vehicle number and the sequence of the accident

Crucially, the Court held that the witnesses turning hostile in criminal proceedings did not invalidate their credible testimonies before the MACT

In analyzing the compensation, the Court found the Tribunal erred by excluding transport allowance from the income; it reassessed the monthly income at Rs. 10,002/-

It further corrected the multiplier from 13 to 17, as the multiplier must be governed by the age of the deceased (27 years)

Non-pecuniary heads were realigned to match current statutory benchmarks

The total compensation was increased from Rs. 8,14,829/- to Rs. 14,99,632/- (an enhancement of Rs. 6,84,803/-) with 7.5% interest per annum

The Court directed the enhanced amount to be deposited with the Registrar General, with specific instructions for immediate lump-sum release of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the remainder to be distributed via monthly Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimant