The court ruled that the deduction for personal expenses of a bachelor is typically 50%, and the appropriate multiplier for compensation calculation is determined by age, affirming the principle of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Issues raised in the instant Appeal pertain to the deduction of one-third of the income of the deceased, a thirty one year old bachelor, in consideration of the expenses which he would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive, when the deduction instead, it is asserted, ought to have been 50%. That, considering the age of the deceased, the Multiplier of “16” ought to have been adopted by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Sikkim at Namchi, instead of “17” for the purpose of calculating the Loss of Earning of the deceased, in terms of the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121. Litigation Costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, as also compensation towards Loss of Love and Affection of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, each, granted to the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3/Claimants, were also assailed.

2.(i) The arguments put forth by Learned Counsel for the Appellant/National Insurance Company Limited was that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ratio of Sarla Verma supra had held that if the deceased was a bachelor and the claim was filed by the parents, the deduction would normally be 50% from the income, as personal and living expenses of the bachelor. That, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father was likely to have his own income and would not be considered to be a dependant, hence the mother alone would be considered to be a dependant. That, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the brothers and sisters of the deceased bachelor would not be considered as dependants because they would usually either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus, even if the deceased was survived by the parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant. The deduction of personal expenses of a bachelor would be 50% and 50% would be the contribution to the family. That, this observation was affirmed by the ratio in Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the standards fixed by the Court in Sarla Verma supra on the aspect of deduction for personal and living expenses must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure is made out by the Claimants. That, in the instant case, no such departure has been shown by the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3/Claimants to justify deduction of one-third only.

(ii) That, for the determination of Multiplier, in the ratio of Sarla Verma supra, the appropriate choice of Multiplier in accordance with the age of the deceased had been prepared, hence, the Multiplier to be adopted in the instant case was “16” considering that the deceased was thirty one years of age at the time of the accident and not the Multiplier of “17,” as erroneously selected by the Learned Tribunal. That, in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court propounded that reasonable figures on Conventional Heads namely Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses be made at the rate of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only, and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, respectively. The said Conventional Heads envisages no calculation for “Loss of Love and Affection” or “Litigation Costs” as included by the Learned Tribunal which has thus erroneously calculated these amounts into the compensation