JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 10.11.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.6,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Satya Narain in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 13.07.2004.

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 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 that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He further contends that deceased-Satya Narain was 27^1/2 years old and was working as a Process Server in the Court at Dabwali, District Sirsa and was drawing a salary of Rs.5,317/- per month. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16 instead of 17. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed by the learned Tribunal and the amount of compensation as assessed by it has rightly been granted to the appellants/claimants. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the award shows that deceased-Satya Narain was 27^1/2 years old at the time of accident. A perusal of the award further shows that as per record, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,317/- per month. A perusal of the award further shows that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16 instead of 17. Moreover, no amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. 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 e