Non-Govt Employee Receiving Annual Increments Is In “Permanent Job” For Grant Of Future Prospects In Motor Accident Claim: MP High Court
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed whether only government servants qualify as being in “permanent job” for the purpose of grant of future prospects in motor accident compensation claims.Bench of Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal held that if a person is in such a job wherein his salary is increased periodically or receives annual increment etc., then, such...
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed whether only government servants qualify as being in “permanent job” for the purpose of grant of future prospects in motor accident compensation claims.
Bench of Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal held that if a person is in such a job wherein his salary is increased periodically or receives annual increment etc., then, such person would be treated as being in “ permanent job”.
The claimant had preferred thus appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Bhopal. It was argued that the deceased, an Assistant Professor at Corporate Institute of Science and Technology in Bhopal, held a permanent job. They claimed that 15% should have been added as future prospects rather than the 10% awarded by the tribunal. Additionally, they contended that consortium compensation should have been awarded to all appellants, not just the first.
The respondents, represented by the insurance company's counsel, asserted that the deceased's position in a private college did not qualify as a permanent job. They argued that only government employees should be treated as holding permanent jobs for the purpose of calculating future prospects. They also suggested that contributory negligence in the accident should reduce the compensation amount.
Justice Paliwal scrutinized the arguments, focusing on the Supreme Court's precedent in the landmark case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) where it was held that future prospects should be considered for both self-employed individuals and those with fixed salaries, acknowledging that their incomes would likely increase over time due to efforts to enhance earnings and periodic salary
The court affirmed that the concept of a "permanent job" extends beyond government employment. Any position with periodic salary increments and revisions, such as the deceased's role as an Assistant Professor, qualifies as a permanent job. Hence, the principle of future prospects should be applied accordingly.
The court partially allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation by Rs. 2,72,260. The total compensation now stands at Rs. 36,95,260, up from the original Rs. 34,23,000 awarded by the tribunal. Case Title: Anjum Ansari and others versus R. Rajesh Rao and others.
Case No: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2423 of 2018
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 151