IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 27.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2025 Lalita and others ......Appellants Vs.

Ajay Pratap Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mrs. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

*****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 20.07.2015 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.10,25,856/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Vijay Pal in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 24.04.2014.

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.

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends:-

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

(ii) that at the time of accident, deceased-Vijay Pal was 45 years old; was an agriculturist having 9 acres of land and was earning Rs.7,00,000/- per annum therefrom.

(iii) that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,500/-.

(iv) that the learned Tribunal has awarded meager rate of interest i.e. 7.5% per annum, on the amount of compensation.

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

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3, however, vehemently argue on the lines of the award and contend 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 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 VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

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 de