1 2025:CGHC:48096 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 399 of 2023 The New India Assurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Divisional Office In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory Manager, Suit Claim Hub Office, 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur ........N. A. No. 4, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Insurer versus 1 - Smt. Sushila Bai Kaivartya W/o Shri Shyamlal Kaivartya Aged About 44 Years R/o Jaitpur, Tahsil Masturi, Police Station Masturi .........Claimants, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Shyamlal Kaivartya S/o Shri Kejuram Kaivartya Aged About 46 Years R/o Jaitpur, Tahsil Masturi, Police Station Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sheetal Kumari Kaivartya D/o Shri Shyamlal Kaivartya Aged About 22 Years R/o Jaitpur, Tahsil Masturi, Police Station Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Minor Nitin Kaivartya S/o Shri Shyamlal Kaivartya Aged About 17 Years Resp. No. 4 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sushila Bai Kaivartya Aged- 44 Years, W/o Shri Shyamlal Kaivartya (R-1) R/o Jaitpur, Tahsil Masturi, Police Station Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.19 10:40:26 +0530 2 5 - Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Permindar Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post- Telco, House No. 85/b Line No. 04, Police Station Telco District- Singhbhum (Jharkhand) ..........Driver. 6 - Smt. Poonam Singh W/o Shri Amit Kumar Singh R/o Behind Ganga Nursing Home, Jagatpur, Dhimrapur Road Raigarh ...........Owner, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Harpreet Singh S/o Buta Singh R/o Gorkha House No. 72, Ward No. 43, Raigarh ........Owner, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate For Respondents 1 - 4 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 18.09.2025 1. The appellant (Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 31/10/2022 passed by learned 2nd Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 367/2020 whereby compensation of Rs. 19,23,659/- has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants for the death of Naveen Kumar Kaivartya, aged about 19 years, who worked as an unskilled labourer and liability of payment of compensation 3 has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would raise a solitary contention that since deceased was unmarried, therefore, ½ deduction ought to have been made towards his personal expenses in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.1 whereas the Claims Tribunal has erred in making 1/3rd deduction towards his personal expenses, therefore, the impugned award be modified and the compensation granted in favour of the claimants be reduced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award and submit that the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation which does not warrant any interference by this Court, accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that if the deceased is a bachelor and has a large family who are dependent on his 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 income, his personal expenses may be deducted as 1/3rd. Paragraph 32 of the judgment states as under :- “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.” 6. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) has been duly considered by the Claims Tribunal, who has clearly recorded a finding that claimants are father and mother and unmarried sister and minor brother of the deceased who were dependent upon his income, and proceeded to deduct 1/3rd income as personal expenses of the deceased. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is absolutely in accordance with law and I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet