IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH INDRAWATI AND ORS ......Appellants Vs.

JAIDEEP @ JAGDEEP AND ANR ......Respondents Reserved on: 19.12.2025 Pronounced on: 13.02.2026 Uploaded on : 17.02.2026 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. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurane Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

CM-9571-CII-2022

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for condonation of delay of 1021 days in filing the appeal.

2. Notice in the application.

3. Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurane Company and contends that they have no objection if the application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that appellants would not ask for interest for the delayed period.

5. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.

6. The delay of 1021 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-3408-2022

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.07.2017 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, Sonepat (for short, 'the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.11,05,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, on account of death of Ram Dhari in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 24.12.2015.

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 here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, they pray 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 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 oth