In motor accident compensation, while 50% is typically deducted for a bachelor's personal expenses, this may be reduced to 1/3rd if the deceased was the sole breadwinner for a large dependent family, including a widowed mother and siblings.

1. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that though a cross-objection has been filed, he does not wish to press the same.

2. Accordingly, the cross-objection preferred by respondents No. 1 to 3 stands dismissed as not pressed.

3. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 27/2023, whereby a sum of Rs. 21,45,312/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of the death of deceased Chakrodhar in a motor accident that occurred on 12.01.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-18-P-3306 by respondent No. 4 (driver/owner), which was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company.

4. As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased, Chakrodhar Baghel, upon receiving information of the death of his father, Shobharam Baghel, was proceeding towards his native village BramhnI on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10/Q-5228 owned by his contractor, Mahesh Yadav. Near Sanjaypara, Bhairamgarh Post Office, respondent No. 1, Samarjeet Patel, while driving motorcycle bearing registration No. CG- 18/P-3306 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased from behind, resulting in the accident in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. In connection with the said incident, Crime No. 147/2023 was registered. It was further pleaded that the deceased, aged about 22 years, was working as a Solar Power Technician earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The claimants, being the mother and two brothers of the deceased, filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 35,49,000/-.

5. Respondent No. 4 filed its written statement contending, inter alia, that he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time; that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence; and that the claim amount was excessive, along with other averments forming part of the record.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, decided the case in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 21,45,312/-.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the deceased was a bachelor, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd, and therefore, the compensation requires suitable deduction.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants supports the impugned award and submits that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family; his father had already passed away; and his widowed mother and two siblings were dependent upon him. It is contended that in view of paragraph 32 of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is just and proper.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record.

10. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,700/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, added 40% towards future prospects, and further awarded amounts under conventional heads such as filial consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, thereby arriving at the total compensation of Rs. 21,45,312.

11. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased was a bachelor, 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses ought not to have been made. However, this contention does not merit acceptance.

12. From the evidence on record, it is evident