JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

1. This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2006 but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.

2. Previously vide order dated 18.07.2024 in FAO No.1682 of 2007, this Court had already issued directions to the Insurance Companies that in the event, any of their empanelled counsel fails to appear, the Court would request the counsel empanelled with the Insurance Companies, who is present in the Court to assist in the matters. Further, the concerned Insurance Companies were directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to the counsel engaged by this Court for assisting in the matters.

3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has handed over copy of the paper- book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

5. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.03.2008 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.1,75,750/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, on account of death of Balwinder Singh @ Binder Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 28.08.2006.

6. 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 here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

7. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

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

10. The facts of the case are undisputed. The deceased was 34 years of age at the time of accident and was an agriculturist. A perusal of the award indicates that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3500/- per month. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for future prospects. Moreover, the amount awarded for funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

11. 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 o