Accident Victim's Income Can Be Assessed Based On Govt Job Appointment Letter Even If He Had Not Joined: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the mother of a 21-year-old accident victim from ₹15.93 lakh to ₹44.55 lakh, holding that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in discarding an appointment letter issued to the deceased for a permanent post in the Department of Posts.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, "It is a matter of natural and reasonable inference that once an appointment letter is issued by a Government Department and the candidate has commenced the process of training/reporting, the future employment and earnings are not “speculative” or “contingent”. It becomes a reasonable and prospective certainty. The issuance of an appointment letter after the entire selection process carries with it a presumption of certainty of employment, subject only to completing formal joining."

The Court added that, when a candidate has successfully obtained an appointment letter in a regular/permanent Government post, the income corresponding to that post cannot be termed hypothetical or uncertain.

"Therefore, the prospective income must be treated as income for computing loss of dependency. The fact that the deceased could not physically join due to a sudden accident does not dilute the certainty of appointment, and this cannot be used to deprive the dependants of their rightful compensation," it opined.

In 2018, deceased- Sonu was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by Randhir when a dumper, allegedly driven rashly by Baljit Singh, crossed into the wrong lane and collided with the motorcycle near a brick-kiln on the Kanwari–Hisar road. Sonu suffered multiple grievous injuries, scummed to it despite treatment.

FIR was lodged under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC. The post-mortem confirmed that Sonu died due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries sustained in the accident. His mother filed a claim seeking ₹2 crore.

The Tribunal held the dumper driver negligent but assessed Sonu's income notionally at ₹10,000 per month, discarding the appointment letter and recruitment documents showing his selection as Postman in the Department of Posts. Compensation was quantified at ₹15,93,700 with 6% interest.

It was argued that Sonu had already commenced mandatory pre-joining training and had secured a permanent Government job with a monthly salary of ₹28,145, which ought to have been taken as the basis for computing dependency.

However, the Insurance Company submitted that the income was speculative because the deceased had not actually joined duty, submitting that “mere issuance of an appointment letter does not amount to employment”.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence based on the eyewitness testimony, FIR, site plan and charge-sheet, noting that the respondents led no contrary evidence.

However, it found serious error in the computation of income that the appointment letter and recruitment documents proved that the deceased had secured a permanent Government post.

Once the selection process was complete and training commenced, the employment was not “speculative”, it added.

The bench found that pay Level-3 under the 7th CPC carried an initial basic pay of ₹21,700, with HRA and Transport Allowance taking the monthly salary to approximately ₹27,000.

The Court emphasised that, "the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare-oriented legislation intended to provide just, fair, and reasonable compensation. The Courts are obligated to adopt a pragmatic approach so that compensation reflects the real loss of income and future earning capacity, rather than hypothetical or minimal figures."

It pointed that the principle that “compensation must be realistic and not symbolic” reinforces that documentary evidence such as an appointment letter must be given full evidentiary weight. In this context, the reassessment of income on the basis of the deceased's Government appointment is consistent with the object and purpose of the Act.

Consequently, the Court said that the total compensation payable to the claimant stands enhanced from ₹15,93,700 to ₹44,55,700, which shall carry interest at rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.

Title: MUNNI DEVI v. PARDEEP AND OTHERS

Click here to read order