The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that an earning bachelor has a moral, social and family duty to support his elderly parents and would not spend half of his income only on himself. On this basis, the court increased the compensation in a motor accident claim and reduced the deduction for personal expenses from 50% to one-third.

The bench headed by Justice Harkesh Manuja noted that the deceased was survived by his elderly parents. He observed that as the sole earning member of the family, the deceased had a moral and social duty to support and maintain his aged parents, in keeping with his family.

The Court said that in such a situation, it is reasonable to assume that the deceased would have saved a significant part of his income for the care and welfare of his dependent parents, instead of spending it entirely on himself.

Justice Manuja explained that while the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) generally allows a 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses of a bachelor, the specific facts of this case justified a lower deduction. Therefore, the Court assessed the deduction at one-third of the deceased’s income.

The appeal was filed against a 2018 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hisar, which had granted compensation of ₹13,52,022 along with 9% annual interest to the claimants for the death of Bhupender @ Vicky in a road accident on 11 June 2016.

Bhupender was a trained electrician who had completed his ITI course from Hisar and was earning about ₹50,000 per month. The claimants argued that his technical qualification and work as an electrician were ignored. However, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹9,258, treating him as an unskilled worker due to the absence of documentary proof of income.

The Court said that cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) are decided in a summary manner, and strict proof of income is not required. A reasonable estimate can be made by looking at the deceased’s social background, skills and nature of work.

It observed that a trained electrician would normally have a steady income. On this basis, the Court fixed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹12,000 (₹400 per day).

The Court added 40% towards future prospects and applied a multiplier of 17, considering that the deceased was 30 years old. It also revised the compensation under other standard heads in line with Supreme Court judgments in Pranay Sethi (2017) and Satinder Kaur (2021).

As against the earlier award of ₹13,52,022, the Court increased the compensation by ₹10,64,778, making the total amount ₹24,16,800.

The Court maintained interest at 9% per year from the date the claim was filed until payment. It further said that if the amount is not paid within three months, the enhanced compensation will carry interest at 12% per year thereafter.

The appellants were represented by Advocate Rose Gupta, while Advocate Vinod Gupta appeared for the Insurance Company.

Case Title: Sharda and Another v. Nagender Sharma and Another