1 2026:CGHC:17495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2186 of 2024 Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through- Its Legal Manager, Present And Correct Address-Office No. 403, 4th Floor, Db City Corporate Park, Flat No.1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) ------(Insurer) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jaimani Baghel W/o Late Shobharam Baghel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village-Bamhani, Post Office Amaguda, P.S.- Nagarnar, Tehsil-Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.) ------(Claimant) 2 - Bhavishya Baghel S/o Late Shobharam Baghel, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village-Bamhani, Post Office Amaguda, P.S.- Nagarnar, Tehsil-Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.) ------(Claimant) 3 - Rupesh Baghel S/o Late Shobharam Baghel, Aged About 17 Years Being Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jaimani Baghel W/o Late Shobharam Baghel, R/o Village-Bamhani, Post Office Amaguda, P.S.- Nagarnar, Tehsil-Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.) ------ (Claimant) 4 - Samarjeet Patel S/o Govind Patel, Aged About 30 Years R/o Sanjaypara Bhairamgarh, P.S. And Tehsil-Bhairamgarh, District-Bijapur (C.G.) ------(Owner-Cum-Driver) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondents No. 4 : None Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order on Board 16/04/2026 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.04.20 13:27:46 +0530 2 1. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that though a cross-objection has been filed, he does not wish to press the same. 2. Accordingly, the cross-objection preferred by respondents No. 1 to 3 stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 27/2023, whereby a sum of Rs. 21,45,312/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of the death of deceased Chakrodhar in a motor accident that occurred on 12.01.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-18-P-3306 by respondent No. 4 (driver/owner), which was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 4. As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased, Chakrodhar Baghel, upon receiving information of the death of his father, Shobharam Baghel, was proceeding towards his native village BramhnI on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10/Q-5228 owned by his contractor, Mahesh Yadav. Near Sanjaypara, Bhairamgarh Post Office, respondent No. 1, Samarjeet Patel, while driving motorcycle bearing registration No. CG- 18/P-3306 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased from behind, resulting in the accident in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. In connection with the said incident, Crime No. 147/2023 was registered. It was further pleaded that the deceased, aged about 22 years, was 3 working as a Solar Power Technician earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The claimants, being the mother and two brothers of the deceased, filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 35,49,000/-. 5. Respondent No. 4 filed its written statement contending, inter alia, that he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time; that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence; and that the claim amount was excessive, along with other averments forming part of the record. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, decided the case in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 21,45,312/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the deceased was a bachelor, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd, and therefore, the compensation requires suitable deduction. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants supports the impugned award and submits that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family; his father had already passed away; and his widowed mother and two siblings were dependent upon him. It is contended that in view of paragraph 32 of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is just and proper. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record. 4 10.The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,700/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, added 40% towards future prospects, and further awarded amounts under conventional heads such as filial consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, thereby arriving at the total compensation of Rs. 21,45,312. 11.The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased was a bachelor, 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses ought not to have been made. However, this contention does not merit acceptance. 12.From the evidence on record, it is evident that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family; his father had already expired; and his widowed mother and two siblings, one of whom is a minor, were dependent upon his income. 13.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, in paragraph 32, has observed as under: “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a 5 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. .” 14.In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 15.Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 16.The interim order stands vacated. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Jyoti,