JUDGMENT : 

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

CM-17585-CII-2025

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 1572 days in filing the cross-objections.

2. Notice in the application.

3. On asking of the Court, Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of appellants. She contends that she has no objection if the application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant would not ask for interest for the delayed period.

5. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.

6. The delay of 1572 days in filing the cross-objection is condoned.

7. The present cross-objection has been preferred by respondents/cross- objectors against the award dated 10.10.2018 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul for enhancement of compensation, granted to respondents/cross-objectors to the tune of Rs.18,81,520/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of deceased-Amit Kumar in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 22.09.2017.

8. As sole issue for determination in the present cross-objections are 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.

S UBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIE S

9. The learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, she prays that the present cross-objections be allowed and present appeal be dismissed and amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that she has instructions to withdraw the appeal bearing No.FAO-2888-2020. Thereby, the appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed as withdrawn.

11. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to deal only with the cross-objections (XOBJC-82-2025) filed in the present appeal.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the cross-objector and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

13. 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