Mr. Manu Luv Shahlia, Advocate v. RAJAN SINGH ORS

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

1. This Court had partly heard the matter on 14.05.2025 and passed the following directions: “4. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 impugning the Award dated 18.01.2020 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Award"] passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Award, compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,59,000/- has been awarded to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant restricts his challenge in the present Appeal to only two grounds. He submits that firstly, the deduction on loss of dependency has been wrongly calculated and secondly, the award on loss of love and affection has been wrongly made.

6. So far as concerns the second contention, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 fairly concedes that the award on loss of love and affection cannot be given in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:03.06.2025 22:53:01 MAC.APP. 38/2021 Page 1 of 7

7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that although the deceased was a bachelor of 40 years, his legal representatives were his brothers and sisters and that there is no evidence on record to prove that the brothers and sisters were in fact dependent upon him. In addition, it is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that each of the brothers and sisters of the deceased would have been married and living with their separate families.

8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the other hand, submits that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Claimants were dependent upon the deceased. He requests for some time to place on record judgments in support of his contentions.”

2. By an order dated 19.01.2021, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed deposit of the entire decretal amount by the Appellant/Insurance Company and had released 50% of the awarded amount in terms of the scheme of dispersal as provided for in the Impugned Award.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the deceased was a bachelor and his siblings were older to him. He seeks to rely upon the judgment in the National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Others1 which, while discussing the judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another2, has held that where the deceased was a bachelor survived by parents, normally 50% would be deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand submits that