ALEEM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ORS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR

Judgment

1. These two appeals - MAC.APP. 138/2024 by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [“Insurance Company”], and MAC.APP. 315/2024 by the claimants - arise out of an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”], dated 09.01.2024 in MACT No. 2028/2016. 2. The proceedings before the Tribunal arose out of an accident that Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:18.11.2025 19:06:26 MAC.APP. 138/2024 Page 1 of 18 occurred on 11.05.2016 at about 05:30 A.M. One Md. Mobin was travelling in an EECO car (Registration No. DL-8CU-7660) when it was hit by a Canter vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-77N-8855. Md. Mobin sustained severe injuries in the accident and succumbed to them on 17.05.2016. He was then 28 years of age. 3. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal in which six persons were arrayed as petitioners – the parents of the deceased, his three younger sisters, and his wife. The insurer of the vehicle was arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal recorded a finding of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the vehicle and assessed the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.28,13,412/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The compensation was held to be payable by the Insurance Company. 5. Both the Insurance Company and the claimants are in appeal, but only on various aspects with regard to the quantum of compensation. 6. As far as the Insurance Company is concerned, the principal ground urged is that the three sisters of the deceased have been wrongly considered as dependants the purpose of computation of compensation, leading to a deduction of only 1/4th of his income towards personal living expenses, whereas the deduction should have been 1/3rd. It is submitted that, for the same reason, the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation on account of loss of consortium to six dependants.

7. In the claimants’ appeal, the questions raised concern the Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:18.11.2025 19:06:26 MAC.APP. 138/2024 Page 2 of 18 assessment of the monthly income of the deceased, which according to the claimants ought to have been assessed at Rs. 22,000/- per month, rather than on the basis of minimum wages. The second submission is that the Tribunal has omitted to award any amount towards medical expenses, despite the original bills having been produced and exhibited.

I have heard Mr. Salil Paul, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. R.S. Rathi, learned counsel for the claimants, and Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, learned Amicus Curiae, appointed by the order of this Court dated 30.04.2025. 9. Each of the heads of challenge is dealt with below. A. Deduction for personal expenses

10. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of the accident. He was married to Ms. Sahana, who was one of the claimants before the Tribunal. The dependency of the wife and parents is not disputed. The only question raised by the Insurance Company is whether the three sisters — Ms. Nazreen, Ms. Nazma and Ms. Nagma — could have been included in the list of dependants. The ages of the three sisters, as stated in the claim petition, were 24 years, 22 years, and 20 years, respectively. 11. As far as deduction of personal expenses is concerned, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. DTC & Anr.1 provides as follows: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra2, the general practice is to several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the standardised deductions. Having considered