Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate v. MS NEELAM AND ORS

Judgment

1. The Registry is directed to register the cross objections as a separate Appeal.

2. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 impugning the judgment dated

10.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,71,000/- has been awarded to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that he has only one ground of challenge in the present Appeal. He submits that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:14.08.2025 10:23:01 MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 1 of 10 deceased was unmarried and survived by her mother and one minor younger brother and thus, the deduction of personal and living expenses should have been one half, however, the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the deduction as one-third.

3.1 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal although discussed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.,1 the deduction was wrongly applied the same since the family of the deceased was not a large family.

4. Briefly, the facts in the present Appeal are that the deceased was travelling in car which met with an accident and the deceased succumbed to her injuries. A Claim Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the mother and the younger brother of the deceased before the Tribunal as stated above. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of compensation of Rs. 19,71,000/- to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum and had directed that the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation awarded. The calculation of the compensation that was taken by the learned Tribunal is set out below: S.No Head 1. 2. Monthly income of deceased (A) Add future prospect (B) @

3. Less 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (C) Amount awarded Rs.9118/- 40% of 9118 = 3647.2/- Rs. 4255.06/- = 1/3rd of 18,765.2(9118 + 3647.2) 1 (2013) 9 SCC 65 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:14.08.2025 10:23:01 MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 2 of 10

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. |Rs.8510.14/- Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- C=D [Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Multiplier (E) Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE=F) Rs.18,38,190.24 Medical expenses (G) Compensation for loss of consortium (I) (48,000x2) Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 1,02,121.68/- 18 Nil Rs.96,000 /- 10 11. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- Rs.18,000/- (K) Total compensation

12. Rs. 19,70,190.24/ rounded Rs.19,71,000/-

4.1 Paragraph 23 of the Impugned Award shows that one third personal and living expenses were deducted in the following manner: “23. Since mother and one younger brother of the deceased are the claimants, which means that the number of dependents were two. The father of the deceased namely Pramod Singh Chauhan is stated to have predeceased her. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.” [Emphasis supplied]

5. It is not disputed between the parties that the deceased was survived only by her widowed mother and younger brother and she was unmarried. The learned Tribunal has after setting out the judgment in the Reshma Kumari case has set out the number of Claimants were two but however, has deducted one third expenses on an interpretation that there were large number “of younger non earning sisters and brothers”. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award is below: “22. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:14.08.2025 10:23:01 MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 3 of 10 necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under: Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number dependents Married Persons Where dependent is 1 Where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6 (six) Half 1/3rd 1/4th 1/5th Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number dependents In case family is not large Bachelor In case dependents are the widowed mother and number of younger non- earning sisters and brothers Half 1/3rd

23. Since mother and one younger brother of deceased are the claimants, which means that the number of dependents were two. The father of the deceased namely Pramod Singh Chauhan is stated to have predeceased her. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income of deceased has to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.” [Emphasis supplied]

6. The Supreme Court in the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:14.08.2025 10:23:01 MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 4 of 10 v. Pranay Sethi2 which extracts Sarla Verma & Ors. v. DTC & Anr3 has held that the deductions of a bachelor/unmarried person are done on a different principal where a family of a bachelor is large and dependent on his or her income with large number of non-earning sisters or brothers, the personal and living expenses may be restricted to one third and with the family being taken as two third. The Court has further held that the percentage of deduction may vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants. The relevant extract of Pranay Sethi case is below:

37. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:- “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 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