JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. (Oral) :

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 11.09.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.1,98,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on account of death of Navdeep Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 04.01.2006.

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 appellant/claimant contends :-

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

ii) that deceased-Navdeep Singh was 23 years old; was working as Munim with Ravinder Brar Trading Company, New Grain Market, Faridabad, and was getting a salary of Rs.5,000/-per month besides earning Rs.7,000/- per month from dairy farming.

iii) that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 18 instead of 5 and also erred in deducting 1/3 instead of 1/2 towards personal expenses, as the deceased was unmarried.

iv) that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate and future prospects.

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

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, 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.

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-Navdeep Singh was 23 years old; was working as Munim with Ravinder Brar Trading Company, New Grain Market, Faridabad, and was getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is evident from the Income Tax Return (Ex.P6) filed by the employer-Ravinder Singh that he was paying the salary of Rs.5,000/- per month to the deceased-Navdeep Singh. Further, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 18 instead of 5 and also erred in deducting 1/3 instead of 1/2 towards personal expenses, as the deceased was unmarried. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate and future prospects. 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 p