JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. 

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.03.2007 passed in the claim petition bearing No. MACT No.72-T dated 12.03.2004 filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-, on account of death of Ajay Bansal, in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 14.11.2003.

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.

3. On the last date of hearing following order was passed:-

'On the last date of hearing, Registry was directed to inform the respondents as well as counsel. The report of the Registry is as under:-

Respondent No. 1 refused to accept the notice and affixation is made.

Respondent No. 2 is residing at Patiala with his son, address not known. '

Since respondent No.l did not accept notice and affixation is made, therefore, he is presumed to be served.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 28.02.2025.

It is made clear that if respondent No. 1 does not appear in person or through counsel on the date fixed, ex parte proceedings would be taken against him.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No.l. '

4. Today again no one is present on behalf of respondents despite being served. Since this case pertains to the year 2007, therefore, the respondents who are not present today are proceeded against ex-parte.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

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

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the whole record of this case.

7. A perusal of the record indicates that the Tribunal has erred while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. The perusal of the income tax return for the assessment year 2003-2004 shows that the annual income of the deceased during this period is as Rs.57,600/-. That after making the necessary deductions on this amount the monthly income of the deceased can safely be presumed as Rs.4,736/- for the purpose of grant of compensation.

8. Further perusal of the record reveals that the Tribunal has erred in law in applying the multiplier of 11 instead of 18 and also failed to include future prospects in its calculation. The Tribunal has also erred in deducting l/3rd amount towards personal expenditure instead of 1/2. Moreover, less amount was awarded for funeral expenses and no amount was awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

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 (l/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (l/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (l/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the cla