Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-1323-2022 2025:CGHC:39169 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1323 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 18.08.2022, passed in Claim Case No.77/2020 (Ashok Kumar Jain and others v. Sachin Mittal and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajput (CG)] United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-Brahm Road, Near Hotel Kumkum, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur (Non-Applicant No.3), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Mahaveer Prasad Jain Aged About 44 Years Occupation Nothing, R/o Village Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur (Applicant No.01), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Rekha Jain W/o Ashok Kumar Jain Aged About 39 Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur (Applicant No.02), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Ku. Bhumi Jain D/o Ashok Kumar Jain Aged About 15 Years Occupation- Student, Minor Through Their Father Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Mahaveer Prasad Jain, R/o Village Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur (Applicant No.03), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Minor Himanshu Jain S/o Ashok Kumar Jain Aged About 13 Years Occupation- Student, Minor Through Their Father Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Mahaveer Prasad Jain, R/o Village Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur (Applicant No.04), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Mahaveer Prasad Jain S/o Late Ramkishun Jain Aged About 67 Years Occupation- Nothing, R/o Village Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur (Applicant No.05), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Shantidevi Jain W/o Mahaveer Prasad Jain Aged About 60 Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur (Applicant No.06), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-1323-2022 7 - Sachin Mittal S/o Vinod Agrawal Aged About 27 Years R/o Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur (Owner) (Non-Applicant No.1), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Mahesh Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o House No.115, Central Bank Gali, Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur (Driver) (Non-Applicant No.2), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : None though served. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 06.08.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 18.08.2022, passed in Claim Case No.77/2020 (Ashok Kumar Jain and others v. Sachin Mittal and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajput (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No.01 to 06/claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.20,86,000/- has been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 7% PA from the date of claim till its actual realization, which is payable by the appellant-Insurance Company herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would make sole submission that since deceased- Punit Jain unmarried, therefore, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-1323-2022 (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1 50% (½) deduction ought to have been done from the income of the deceased towards personal living, whereas, the learned MACT has deducted only 1/3 towards the same. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. None appeared for the respondents though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would appropriate to notice the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), wherein it has been held 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 family of the bachelor is large and dependant 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. In the case at hand, the learned MACT upon finding that the deceased was having his parents, younger sister and brother dependent upon him and his family is large in number (i.e. 06 persons), deducted 1/3rd amount from his income towards personal living, which 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-1323-2022 in the considered opinion of this Court is well merited under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if