IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH XOBJC-72-CII-2018 Reserved on: 08.10.2025 Date of Decision: 29.10.2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

......Appellant Vs.

SHEELO AND ORS ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company.

None for respondents No.1 to 5.

Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.6.

Mr. Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.7 & 8.

----

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. Vide this common judgment, this Court shall dispose of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company as well as cross objections filed by the claimants.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 10.04.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Fatehabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 were awarded compensation of Rs.18,53,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum and Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation, on the ground that compensation awarded is on higher side. However, the cross objections have also been filed by the claimants-cross objectors for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. 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 here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. He further argues that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting 50% as future prospects instead of 40%. Moreover, the deduction towards personal expenditure should have been 1/2 instead of 1/3rd as per the settled law in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport C orporation and Another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 . Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be modified as per latest law.

5. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and respondent No.7 & 8 have vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, they prays for modification of the award as per latest law.

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

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. D elhi 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 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 a