JUDGMENT

B.S. Walia, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.24,92,912/- awarded to therespondents claimants by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal. Learned Counsel contends that income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages under the MINIMUM WAGES ACT instead of on the basis of average of Minimum Wages fixed by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana and the rate of wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. Learned Counsel further contends that deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to have been @ 50% instead of @ 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as made by the learned Tribunal.

2. Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 and 2 only as learned counsel for the appellant contends that the award imposes liability on the appellant Insurance Company and the owner and driver jointly and severally. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the appellants, notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dispensed with.

3. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, learned counsel for Cavetaor- respondent Nos.1 and 2, who is present in Court, accepts notice and vehemently opposes the prayer for reduction by contending that the mother and unmarried sister of deceased Mubarik Ali were rightly awarded compensation by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others , 2018(18) SCC 130 , Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6) SCC 121, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Devi and others Law Finder Doc Id # 1975439, FAO No.631 of 2022 titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jannati and others decided on 24.08.2022, FAO No.3584 of 2022 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited v. Amarjit and others decided on 26.08.2022 as upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 27.02.2023 in SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s). 42225 of 2022 in case titled as United India Insurance Company Limited v. Amarjit and others.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel.

5. Admittedly, the deceased Mubarik Ali was aged 25 years at the time of his death on 01.12.2019 and was working as a cleaner in a truck though on the basis of licence of driver of a heavy vehicle issued to the deceased, it is claimed that he was working as a driver and drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal by treating the deceased as unskilled worker assessed his monthly income on the basis of rates fixed under the notification issued for the relevant period by the State of Haryana under the MINIMUM WAGES ACT and the wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. The Tribunal further by taking into account that the deceased had left behind his widowed mother and unmarried sister treated the case tobe one falling in the exceptional clause as contained in the decision of Sarla Verma's case(supra) and made deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased @ 1/3rd instead of 50% as per the general rule. Hon'ble the Supreme Court inMagma's case (supra) while taking into account the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) as also the fact that the deceased therein was living in a village wherein he was residing with his aged father who was about 65 years old and unmarried sister, upheld the deduction made by the High Court towards personal expenses @ 1/3rd . In Sarla Verma's case (supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that where the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living e