1 2025:CGHC:48094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1384 of 2023 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Incorrectly Mentioned As Th Oriental India Insurance Co. Ltd.), Through - Branch Manager, Branch Office 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.), Represented Through Its In-Charge, Legal Hub, Legal Hub Office, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.),....(Insurer Of Bus No. Cg-10- G-1077),..(Non-Applicant No. 3) ... Appellant/Insurer versus 1 - Ramnarayan Madhukar S/o Shri Chidiram Madhukar Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Tulsi, Post Misda, Thana Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Narmada Bai W/o Shri Ramnarayan Madhukar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Tulsi, Post Misda, Thana Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Devika D/o Shri Ramnarayan Madhukar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Tulsi, Post Misda, Thana Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 4 - Ravikant Madhukar S/o Shri Ramnarayan Madhukar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Tulsi, Post Misda, Thana Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Pramula Kant Madhukar S/o Shri Ramnarayan Madhukar Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Their Father And Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1, Ramnarayan Madhukar, S/o Shri Chidiram Madhukar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Tulsi, Post Misda, Thana Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Kavita Madhukar D/o Shri Ramnarayan Madhukar Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Their Father And Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1, Ramnarayan Madhukar, S/o Shri Chidiram Madhukar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Tulsi, Post Misda, Thana Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.),...(Claimants) 7 - Tejnarayan Rajak S/o Shri Pokhanlal Rajak Aged About 26 Years Occupation - Driver, Resident Of Village Bharridand, P.S. Marwahi, District - Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.),.....(Driver Of Bus No. Cg-10-G-1077) 8 - Sandeep Jaiswal S/o Shri Lakhanlal Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Khaira, Thana And Tah. Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.),...(Owner Of Bus No. Cg-10-G-1077) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pallav Mishra on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondents 1, 5 and 6 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 3 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 21/03/2023 passed by learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 1140/2022 whereby compensation of Rs. 76,62,144/- has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants for the death of Shaktikant Madhukar, aged about 29 years, who worked as a Government servant under the Agriculture Department and liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would make a two fold submission :- (i) 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. 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (ii) the amount of income tax i.e. Rs. 28,834/- ought to have been deducted from the net income, therefore, the impugned award be modified and the amount of compensation be reduced. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 5 and 6/claimant would submit that even though deceased was unmarried but he had a large family i.e. parents, two brothers and two sisters, who were all dependent upon his income, as such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. He would further submit that so far as the amount of income tax of Rs. 28,834/- is concerned, it ought to have been deducted. 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. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company with regard to deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, 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 income, his personal expenses may be deducted as 1/3rd. Paragraph 32 of the judgment states as under :- 5 “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 two brothers and two sisters of the deceased, out of whom two are minor and all of them 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 merit in this contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. 7. However, with regard to the amount of income tax, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 5 and 6/claimants has himself conceded that it ought to have been deducted from the amount of compensation. As such, the amount of income tax i.e. Rs. 28,834/- is hereby deducted from the amount of compensation and after deducting the said 6 amount, a sum of Rs. 76,33,310/- is granted to the claimants as compensation. No other point was pressed into service. The rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet