SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

FAO-1518-2025

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein the appellant-Insurance company was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.1,17,05,643/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

XOBJC-38-2028

2. The present cross-objections have been preferred by cross objector/claimants against the award dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation, granted to them to the tune of Rs.1,17,05,643/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on account of death of Neha Singal in a Motor Vehicular Accident.

3. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal and cross objections 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

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal has taken income of deceased on higher side. He further contends that income of Rs.56,498/- assessed by the learned Tribunal is wholly without any basis because the employer of deceased was not examined, therefore, in absence of any evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has taken monthly income of deceased on whims and fancies. He furthermore contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in deduction 1/3rd instead of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses as per the settled law, therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for cross-objectors/claimants contends that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side hence warrants enhancement. He furthermore contends that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased after deducting Income Tax as per the settled law. He furthermore contends that compensation under the conventional heads are on lower side and deserves to be enhanced.

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

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. 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 not be considered as a dependant and the mother a