SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

FAO-3658-2015

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against award dated 04.02.2015 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by respondents No.1 to 4 was allowed and liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is on higher side.

XOBJC-225-CII-2025

2. The present cross-objection has been preferred by respondents No.1 to 4/cross-objectors/claimants against the award dated 04.02.2015 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad for enhancement of compensation, granted to respondents No.1 to 4/cross objectors to the tune of Rs.24,91,868/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum on account of death of deceased-Suresh Kumar in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 07.04.2013.

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 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in law by failing to deduct the amount received by the dependants of the deceased under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. He further contends that in view of the settled legal position, the said amount is liable to be deducted while computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and consequently, the awarded compensation deserves to be reduced. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed and compensation be reduced as per the settled law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants/cross-objectors contends that compensation awarded is on the lower side. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed and compensation be enhanced as per the settled law.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with his 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 alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not b