High Court · 2025

Mr. Bharat Tewari, Advocat e for t he appellant . Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi and Mr . Sandeep Tiwari, Advocat e for t he respondent nos.1 t o 3. Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocat e respondent nos.4 & 5.

2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by t he I nsur ance Com pany, challenging t he awar d dat ed 07.10.2022 passed by learned M.A.C.T./ I st Addit ional Dist rict Judge, Haldwani, Dist rict Nainit al in M.A.C.P. No. 183 of 2019. I t t he deceased. incom e of in accordance wit h Lear ned counsel for t he appellant has 3. assailed t he im pugned awar d on t he specific ground t hat t he learned Tribunal has erred in m aking deduct ion t owards personal and living expenses of cont ended t hat alt hough t here w er e t hr ee dependent s of t he deceased, t he Tribunal wrongly applied a deduct ion of 1/ 4 t h from t he deceased; t he annual t he set t led wher eas, principles laid dow n by t he Hon’ble Supr em e Court , t he appropriat e deduct ion ought t o have been 1/ 3 rd in t hree dependent s. I n lear ned t o but t ress his ar gum ent , counsel for t he appellant placed reliance upon t he j udgm ent rendered in t he case of “ Sarla Verm a ( Sm t .) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporat ion and anot her , r eport ed in ( 2009) 6 SCC 121, wher ein t he Hon’ble Supr em e dow n aut horit at ively Court guidelines t he assessm ent of deduct ions t owar ds per sonal m ot or accident claim cases. I t has been held t hat where t he deceased is surviv ed by t wo t o bring uniform it y living expenses of t he deceased t hree dependent s, t o be m ade t he appropriat e t o deduct ion t he annual incom e is one- t hir d; in cases of four t o six dependent s, one- fourt h; and where t he dependent s are m ore t han six , one- fift h. Paragr aph no.30 of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: t o apply living expenses t owards personal and “ 3 0 . Though in som e cases t he deduct ion t o be m ade calculat ed on t he basis of unit s indicat ed in Tr ilok Chandra [ ( 1996) 4 SCC 362] , t he general pract ice st andardised deduct ions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of t his Court , we are of t he view t hat where t he deceased was m arried, t he deduct ion t owards personal and living expenses of t he deceased, should be one- t hird ( 1/ 3rd) where fam ily m em bers is 2 t o 3, one- fourt h ( 1/ 4t h) where t he num ber of dependent fam ily m em bers is 4 t o 6, and one- fift h ( 1/ 5t h) where t he num ber of dependent fam ily m em bers exceeds six.” t he num ber of dependent I n Sarla Verm a’s case ( Supra) , t he 4. Hon’ble Suprem e Court st andar dized t he m et hod for deduct ion t owards personal and living expenses of t he deceased based on t he num ber of dependent s and also laid t he appr opriat e m ult ipliers. The Const it ut ion Bench of t he Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he case of “ Nat ional I nsurance Com pany Lim it ed Vs. Pranay Set hi and ot hers, report ed in ( 2017) 16 SCC 680, while affir m ing t he principles laid down in furt her Sarla Verm a’s cryst allized fut ure t he prospect s t o t he incom e of t he deceased com pensat ion under convent ional heads. Thus, bot h j udgm ent s t oget her ensure uniform it y, consist ency , and fair ness in aw arding j ust com pensat ion. law by adding st andar dizing ( Supra) ,

5. Lear ned counsel appearing on behalf of t he r espondent s fairly conceded t o t he t he aforem ent ioned j udgm ent s and subm it t ed t hat t he im pugned award m ay appr opriat ely be m odified in accordance t her ewit h. proposit ions enunciat ed

6. Considering t he evidence on record and incom e ₹33,560.45, t he m ont hly t he subm issions of t he learned counsel for t he part ies, it is observed t hat t he m ont hly income of the deceased was ₹48,639. Deduct ing 10% t owards per sonal ex penses, the net income comes to ₹43,775/- . Aft er applying t he st at ut ory one- t hir d deduct ion, the amount stands at ₹29,183/- . Taking int o account 15% enhancem ent t owards fut ure prospect s, determined incom e of t o an annual corresponds ₹4,02,725.40. Applying the appropriate m ult iplier of 11, t he loss of dependency amounts to ₹44,29,979.40. Adding other heads of t o ₹1,75,000/- , t he t ot al com pensat ion com es initially to ₹46,04,979.40. The award granted was ₹51,58,264/- , which aft er applying t he st at ut ory one- t hir d deduct ion, equates to ₹46,04,979.40. The difference of ₹5,53,285/- is t her efore not pay able. I n view of t he above, t he claim ant s are held ent it led ₹46,04,979.40. com pensat ion am ount ing com pensat ion r eceive t o t he I n view of t he for egoing, t he appeal is 7. im pugned awar d part ly allowed and dat ed 07.10.2022 passed by learned M.A.C.T. is m odified and t he claim ant s ar e held ent it led t o receive com pensat ion of ₹46,04,979/- , in t erm s of t he calculat ions discussed abov e. ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

19.09.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb 7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9874 46351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL