IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:16.02.2026 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …..Appellant Vs.

Charanjit Kaur and Others .….Respondents/Caveators CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company.

Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for the caveator/claimants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred the present appeal assailing award dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, confined solely to the aspect of quantum.

2. The claim pe..on arose out of a motor vehicular accident dated 16.05.2024, in which Happy Singh, aged 22 years and unmarried, lost his life due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing registra.on No. PB- 13-BQ-0028. His parents, unmarried brother and grandfather ins.tuted a pe..on under Sec.on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensa.on against the driver-cum-owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal assessed total compensa.on at ₹35,88,000/- and directed the respondents to pay the same jointly and severally along with interest @ 9% per annum.

3. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the insurer has raised three principal conten.ons: (i) that the monthly income of deceased at ₹17,500/- assessed by the Tribunal is excessive and ought to have been determined on the basis of minimum wages; (ii) that since the deceased was unmarried, 50% deduc.on towards personal and living expenses ought to have been applied instead of 1/3rd; and (iii) that the rate of interest @

9% per annum is excessive in the prevailing economic scenario.

4. Counsel for the claimants, who have appeared as caveators, has supported the award and, in fact, sought enhancement, contending that the deceased was earning ₹20,000/- per month and that the Tribunal has rightly made deduc.on of 1/3rd and awarded interest @ 9% per annum.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.

6. At the outset, it is undisputed that the deceased was unmarried. The claimants are his mother, father, unmarried brother and grandfather. The principles governing deduc.on in the case of death of a bachelor stand authorita.vely seCled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora(cid:22)on and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. The Supreme Court has categorically held that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, normally 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, as a bachelor is presumed to spend more on himself. Further, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the father is generally not treated as a dependent, and siblings are not presumed to be dependents unless specific evidence establishes their dependency.

7. The excep.on carved out in Sarla Verma applies only where the family is large and demonstrably dependent upon the income of the deceased bachelor—for instance, where there is a widowed mother and several non-earning younger siblings.

8. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to establish that the father, brother or grandfather were financially dependent upon the deceased. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal commiCed an error in applying 1/3rd deduc.on. The correct deduc.on, in view of the binding precedent, is 50% towards personal and living expenses. The conten.on of the insurer on this aspect, therefore, merits acceptance.

9. As regards the income of the deceased, the claimants had pleaded that he was earning ₹20,000/- per month as a labourer. In support thereof, Rajpal Singh was examined as CW-2 and produced the relevant account ledger showing that the deceased was receiving ₹17,500/- per month. No rebuCal evidence was led by the insurer. In the absence of any contrary material, there is no reason to discard the documentary evidence produced. The Tribunal’s assessment of monthly i