JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 02.12.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents to the tune of Rs.9,27,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

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 here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which provides for assessment of the compensation payable as per second schedule. He further contends that the second schedule does not provide for increase in the income on account of future prospectus, whereas learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has added 50% of the income assessed towards future prospects, therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/claimants contends that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and they have preferred separate appeal bearing No.FAO-5614-2018, titled as “Rajvir Kaur and others Vs. Rohtash and anothers” seeking enhancement of compensation. He therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

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

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. 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 and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or b