(Oral):

1. The insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred the present appeal assailing award dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, confined solely to the aspect of quantum.

2. The claim petition arose out of a motor vehicular accident dated 16.05.2024, in which Happy Singh, aged 22 years and unmarried, lost his life due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration No. PB-13-BQ-0028. His parents, unmarried brother and grandfather instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation against the driver-cum-owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal assessed total compensation at Rs.35,88,000/- and directed the respondents to pay the same jointly and severally along with interest @ 9% per annum.

3. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the insurer has raised three principal contentions: (i) that the monthly income of deceased at Rs.17,500/- assessed by the Tribunal is excessive and ought to have been determined on the basis of minimum wages; (ii) that since the deceased was unmarried, 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to have been applied instead of 1/3rd; and (iii) that the rate of interest @ 9% per annum is excessive in the prevailing economic scenario.

4. Counsel for the claimants, who have appeared as caveators, has supported the award and, in fact, sought enhancement, contending that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and that the Tribunal has rightly made deduction of 1/3rd and awarded interest @ 9% per annum.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.

6. At the outset, it is undisputed that the deceased was unmarried. The claimants are his mother, father, unmarried brother and grandfather. The principles governing deduction in the case of death of a bachelor stand authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. The Supreme Court has categorically held that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, normally 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, as a bachelor is presumed to spend more on himself. Further, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the father is generally not treated as a dependent, and siblings are not presumed to be dependents unless specific evidence establishes their dependency.

7. The exception carved out in Sarla Verma applies only where the family is large and demonstrably dependent upon the income of the deceased bachelor—for instance, where there is a widowed mother and several non-earning younger siblings.

8. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to establish that the father, brother or grandfather were financially dependent upon the deceased. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal committed an error in applying 1/3rd deduction. The correct deduction, in view of the binding precedent, is 50% towards personal and living expenses. The contention of the insurer on this aspect, therefore, merits acceptance.

9. As regards the income of the deceased, the claimants had pleaded that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a labourer. In support thereof, Rajpal Singh was examined as CW-2 and produced the relevant account ledger showing that the deceased was receiving Rs.17,500/- per month. No rebuttal evidence was led by the insurer. In the absence of any contrary material, there is no reason to discard the documentary evidence produced. The Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at Rs.17,500/- (Rs.2,10,000/- annually) is, therefore, affirmed.

10. Since the deceased was 22 years of age, addition of 40% towards future prospects is warranted in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680, which standardizes addition towards future prospects for persons below 40 years of age even in cases of fixed or established income. After addition of 40%, the annual income becomes Rs.2,94,000/-.

11. Applying 50% deduction towards personal expenses, the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.1,47,000/-. The appropriate multiplier for age 22 years is ‘18’, as per Sarla Verma. Thus, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.26,46,000/- (Rs.1,47,000 × 18).

12. Under conventional heads, the amounts are recalculated in consonance with Pranay Sethi (supra). Funeral expenses and loss of estate are assessed at Rs.18,000/- each. Further, consortium is payable to eligible claimants. In view of the subsequent jurisprudence extending filial consortium to parents and siblings, an amount of Rs.48,000/- each is awarded to the mother, father and brother, aggregating Rs.1,44,000/-.

13. Accordingly, the total compensation is recalculated as follows:

                   * Loss of dependency: Rs.26,46,000/-

                   * Funeral expenses: Rs.18,000/-

                   * Loss of estate: Rs.18,000/-

                   * Consortium (Rs.48,000 × 3): Rs.1,44,000/-

                   * Total: Rs.28,26,000/-

14. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal stands reduced from Rs.35,88,000/- to Rs.28,26,000/-.

15. As regards interest, keeping in view the prevailing bank rates and consistent practice of this Court in recent matters, the rate of interest is modified from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

16. It is clarified that except for Rs.48,000/- each (with proportionate interest) payable to the father and brother towards consortium, the remaining compensation along with proportionate interest shall be payable to the mother, being the principal dependent.

17. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the above extent. The award stands modified in the aforesaid terms. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.