Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

A.O. No.128 of 2023

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Bharat Tewari, Advocate for the

appellant.

Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi and Mr. Sandeep

Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to

3.

Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate for

respondent nos.4 & 5.

2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 07.10.2022 passed by learned M.A.C.T./Ist Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in M.A.C.P. No.

183 of 2019.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award on the specific ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in making deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. It is contended that although there were three dependents of the deceased, the Tribunal wrongly applied a deduction of 1/4^th from the annual income of the deceased; whereas, in accordance with the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appropriate deduction ought to have been 1/3^rd in three dependents. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of “Sarla Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively laid down guidelines to bring uniformity in the assessment of deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in motor accident claim cases. It has been held that where the deceased is survived by two

to three dependents, the appropriate deduction to be made from the annual income is one-third; in cases of four to six dependents, one-fourth; and where the dependents are more than six, one-fifth. Paragraph no.30 of the said judgment is extracted below:

“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 [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having 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.”

4. In Sarla Verma’s case (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court standardized the method for deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased based on the number of dependents and also laid down the appropriate multipliers. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, while affirming the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (Supra), further crystallized the law by adding future prospects to the income of the deceased and standardizing compensation under conventional heads. Thus, both judgments together ensure uniformity, consistency, and fairness in awarding just compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly conceded to the legal propositions enunciated in the aforementioned judgments and submitted that the impugned award may appropriately be modified in accordance therewith.

6. Considering the evidence on record and A JA R I P S A W N A L DDU27s4D e .3 6 T iN a 5 r g 9 3t i . : 4 a i e 3 5 A tc l . : a 1 2 N =R 2 l 9 E 0 IA u 0 yN 4 8= m K 2 D f s, e9 5 H io bF a g f . A= 0 e 0 b e n 9 4 N 4 H r b e = . 5 A D 1 I 6 dG 0b A9 8 , b 6 a H a D1 0 y 33 A6 C Fe8 A : O CA , 2 9 R p120 U 5 P o7C: e R 0 A s02 4 T 7 t N 2C 1a O + 9l E J CB 0 AF 3 A oE 5 7 I 6 US dA ' c 3 WT e2 E 0, =6 3c A ' A Dn 2 LR c6 =E 2 A 32A 30 K 1R 9 H 5P 61D A A 4, 6 N N cs8t0 D = JD 4 A , U 8 9 o I 5T SD u 3 W = 4A6 5 H A 5R4 I L 4A G C K H 5 5H1