Shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Maya Devi and Ors.

1. These are the Applications filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 5 days in re-filing and 1 day in filing the present Appeal.

2. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay is condoned.

3. The Applications stand disposed of. MAC.APP. 623/2025 & CM Appl. 60210/2025[Stay]

4. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”] impugning the award dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-01, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”]. By the Impugned Award, the compensation amount in the sum of Rs. 25,82,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum has been awarded.

5. The challenge in the present Appeal is limited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on one ground. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi[1] and Sarla Verma & Ors. v DTC[2], the deduction in the case of a bachelor should be 1/2, while the learned Tribunal has taken deduction as 1/3.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the only person dependent on the deceased was the mother of the deceased and thus, 1/3 deduction could not be awarded.

7. A perusal of the Impugned Award shows that the deceased was survived by his mother and two sisters. One of the sisters of the deceased was married and living separately, however, the other sister of the deceased was residing with the mother of the deceased and she was also pursuing her education and doing a course from IGNOU. It is further stated that all household expenses and other expenses was taken care by the deceased who is the son/brother of the Claimants. It is apposite to set out the evidence of PW-1 in this behalf below: “XXXXXXXX by Sh. Saurabh Mehra, Ld. Counsel for R3/Shree Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. I have studied till class 5th and I am housewife. My son was property dealer by profession. My was son studying in B.A 3rd Year but I have not filed any relevant document in this regard on record. I personally know Rajesh Kumar driver of offending vehicle as he is my nephew. My nephew and my son had gone to take their children from mall at the time of accident. I have no knowledge whether my deceased son used to file ITR and I have not filed any relevant document in this regard on record. My relatives has informed me regarding the accident. I have not filed on record any income document of my son. I have two daughters namely Neeraj and she is married residing separately with her husband and Neetu Nigam is pursuing National Disaster Management Course from IGNOU and she is residing with me. I received Rs. 2,500/- as a handicapped pension i.e., used to run household expenses. Vol. again said my household expenses and other expenses was takecare by my deceased son.

XXXXXXXX by Sh. Satyendra Kajla, Ld. Counsel for R[1]. It is correct that I have no personal knowledge whether the respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It is further correct that I am not aware whether driver and deceased were under the influence of alcohol or not. I and my daughter Neetu Nigam was dependent on the deceased. It is wrong to suggest that Neetu Nigam has no dependency over the deceased. It is wrong to suggest that the respondent no.1 has not liability towards the petitioners. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

8. The sister of the deceased, PW-2 also gave her evidence where she has confirmed that she is pursuing a diploma from IGNOU and that she was dependent on the deceased.

9. The learned Tribunal examined this and found that the deceased is survived by two persons who were dependent on him is the mother as well as his sister and thus, 1/3 of the income is required to be deducted for personal and living expenses.

10. The Supreme Court in the Pranay Sethi case, while relying on the Sarla Verma case has held that the deductions in the case 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 parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependant, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

38. In Reshma Kumari, the three-Judge Bench agreed with the multiplier determined in Sarla Verma and eventually held that the advantage of the Table prepared in Sarla Verma is that uniformity and consistency in selection of multiplier can be achieved. It has observed:- “35.... The assessment of extent of dependency depends on examination of the unique situation of the individual case. Valuing the dependency or the multiplicand is to some extent an arithmetical exercise. The multiplicand is normally based on the net annual value of the dependency on the date of the deceased’s death. Once the net annual loss (multiplicand) is assessed, taking into account the age of the deceased, such amount is to be multiplied by a “multiplier” to arrive at the loss of dependency.”

39. In Reshma Kumari, the three-Judge Bench, reproduced paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of Sarla Verma and approved the same by stating thus:- “41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses. One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man’s net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses 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.