1 2025:CGHC:50566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 316 of 2024  Chandrika Bai Vishvakarna Wd/o Late Hiralal Vishvakarma, Aged About 56 Years R/o- Village- Kuan Police Station- Chakarbhatha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Sanjay Kumar Dhiwar S/o Parasram Dhiwar, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Saida, Junipara- Police Station Sakri District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ( Driver Of The Vehicle Scorpio No. C.G. 10-Am-3099) 2. Priya Sonhare D/o Pawan Sonhare, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Ameri, Satnam Nagar, Police Station- Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ( Owner Of Vechicle Scorpio No. C.G. 10-Am- 3099) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through- Branch Manager, Branch Office- 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Police Station- Civil Line, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ( Insurer Of The Vechicle Scorio No. C.G.10-Am-3099) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No.1&2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 10/10/2025 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.13 18:34:21 +0530 2 1) Heard on admission. 2) Appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 1434/2019 dated 14.8.2023 whereby Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,38,200/- on account of death of Hiralal Vishvakarma. 3) Facts of the present case as per claim application are that on 7.11.2019, Hiralal Vishvakarma was going from Sirgitti to Bannak Chowk on his motorcycle. When he reached near Narmada Cold Drink Factory Gate No. 1, a Scorpio Car (herein after to be referred as ‘offending vehicle’) bearing registration No. CG-10- AM-3099 dashed the motorcycle. In the accident, Hiralal Vishvakarma sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. Appellant moved a claim application and pleaded that the deceased was aged about 65 years; he was working as Turner at D.D. Enterprises, Sirgitti, Bilaspur and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. Respondents No. 1 and 3 herein filed reply and denied the averments made in claim application. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and Claims Tribunal passed the award impugned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Claims Tribunal has considered the notional monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 8,600/- per month whereas copy of pay-slip was produced 3 before the Claims Tribunal. He further submits that Claims Tribunial erred in law in deducting 50% for personal and living expenses of the deceased. He contends that Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amounts under conventional heads. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 would oppose. He submits that in the present case, number of dependent is only one i.e. wife of the deceased, therefore Claims Tribunal rightly deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. He further submits that claimant has not examined the employer to prove the earnings of the deceased, therefore Claims Tribunal rightly applied the minimum wage matrix and assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased. He contends that Claims Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation under other conventional heads, therefore this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, age of the deceased was 65 years at the time of accident. The claimant failed to produce appointment order of the deceased. A pay-slip has been produced but employer has not been examined to prove the contents of pay-slip. As age of the deceased was 65 years, therefore there was heavy burden on the claimant to prove that he was employed somewhere at that age. 4 Accordingly, Claims Tribunal has applied the minimum wages matrix to assess the notional monthly income of the deceased and arrived at the figure of Rs. 8,600/- per month which in my opinion is just and proper. 8) With regard to deduction on account of personal and living expenses of the deceased, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Others Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Another1 has held as under :- 25. We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. No evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. Claimants will obviously tend to claim that the deceased was very frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased was a spendthrift, even if he was one. 26. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part of the income on his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardize the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was a married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction, got statutory recognition under Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`MV Act' for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline. 1. (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 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 standardized 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 dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 9) Bare reading of these paras would make it clear that when number of dependents are 2 to 3, deduction would be 1/3rd, but in the present case, number of dependent is one, therefore Claims Tribunal rightly deducted 50% for personal and living expenses of the deceased. On other conventional heads, Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 16,500/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate ; Rs. 44,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a