IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAM AVTAR ......Appellant Vs.

GAJENDER @ GAJIA AND ORS. ......Respondents Reserved on: 09.02.2026 Pronounced on: 11.02.2026 Uploaded on: 12.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate (through v.c.)

Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for respondent No.6-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 22.09.2009 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of deceased Omwati @ Omo Devi in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on

01.02.2007.

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 and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant. She further contends that respondent No.6-Insurance Company has preferred FAO-2801-2010, FAO-2802 to 2816-2010 and CR-5035-2010, challenging the liability as affixed upon Insurance Company. She further contends that vide order dated 19.01.2011, Coordinate Bench of this Court has set aside the liability of Insurance Company and made owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation to the claimants. She therefore prays that respondent No.6- Insurance Company should not be made liable to pay the compensation.

Therefore, she prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

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