IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 Uploaded on : 30.01.2026 Chameli Devi and others ......Appellants Vs.

Sanjeev Kumar and others ......Respondents 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. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.

None for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 01.03.2018 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.3,22,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, on account of death of Kehar Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 23.04.2016.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent illegality in deducting the monthly pension amount of Rs.24,000/- received by the claimant, the widow of the deceased Kehar Singh, while determining the loss of dependency. Further contends that such deduction is wholly impermissible and runs contrary to the settled principles of law. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which assessment is arbitrary and unsustainable. Reliance is placed upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 3191. Therefore, he prays that that the present appeal deserves to be allowed, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed by the learned Tribunal and the amount of compensation as assessed by it has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present 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 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 t