The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to established principles for calculating compensation regarding dependency deductions and conventional heads, enhancing the awarded compensation accordingly.

JUDGMENT :SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

CM-11834-CII-2022

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, for condonation of delay of 166 days in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 166 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

FAO- 3858 - 2022 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.11.2019 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.60,41,806/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, on account of death of Gurdeep Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 28.11.2018.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends:-

i) that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.

ii) that deceased-Gurdeep Singh was 24 years old having monthly income of Rs.50,000/- per month as a salary from Indian Army for the post of Lance Naik.

iii) that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/2 instead of 1/3rd towards personal expenses.

iv) that the amount granted by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate and future prospects is also on lower side.

Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121] laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent