1 (MAC No. 54 of 2023) 2025:CGHC:40491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 54 of 2023 1 - Branch Manager/ Divisional Manager Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company Limited, Dallirajhara, District Balod (C.G.) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Jayanti Sikdar W/o Late Sudhanshu Sikdar Aged About 50 Years R/o House Number 34 Pv 80, Haridaspur, Post And Police Station Baande, Tahsil Pankhajur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Sikdar S/o Late Sudhanshu Sikdar Aged About 28 Years R/o House Number 34 Pv 80, Haridaspur, Post And Police Station Baande, Tahsil Pankhajur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashutosh Sikdar S/o Late Sudhanshu Sikdar Aged About 25 Years R/o House Number 34 Pv 80, Haridaspur, Post And Police Station Baande, Tahsil Pankhajur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Monika D/o Late Sudhanshu Sikdar Aged About 22 Years R/o House Number 34 Pv 80, Haridaspur, Post And Police Station Baande, Tahsil Pankhajur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Avinash Sikdar S/o Late Sudhanshu Sikdar Aged About 18 Years R/o House Number 34 Pv 80, Haridaspur, Post And Police Station Baande, Tahsil Pankhajur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.08.14 17:49:53 +0530 2 (MAC No. 54 of 2023) 6 - Sanju Nagtode S/o Gopal Nagtode Aged About 39 Years R/o House Number 790, Titurdih Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Mannu Lal Sahu S/o Mehar Singh Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Aunratola, Police Station And Tehsil Daundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellants :- Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 5 :- Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 12.08.2025 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of award dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,02,800/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of claim application has been granted to the claimants for the death of Paritosh Sikdar, aged about 30 years and the liability to pay the 3 (MAC No. 54 of 2023) amount of compensation has been fastened upon the insurance company. 2. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased namely, Paritosh Sikdar was a bachelor and claimant No.1 is the mother and claimant Nos.2 to 5 are siblings of the deceased who have attained the age of majority and having their own income, therefore, they cannot be considered as dependent upon the deceased. As such, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting one third income towards personal expenses of the deceased, whereas there ought to have been 50% deduction, in view of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr1 3. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the claimants would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the deceased namely, Paritosh Sikdar was a bachelor aged about 30 years and considering the total number of claimants as five, the learned Claims Tribunal has proceeded to deduct one third income towards 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (MAC No. 54 of 2023) personal expenses of the deceased, which is in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra). In that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. 6. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 7. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!