Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Raghubir Singh & Ors

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M)

Reserved on : 02.11.2026

Pronounced on: 05.11.2026

Uploaded on: 05.11.2026

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited
..... Appellant

VERSUS

Raghubir Singh and others ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA

Present: Mr. Harpreet Puri, Advocate for
Mr. Chandandeep Singh, Advocate
for the appellant-insurance company.

Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate,
for respondents No.3 and 4.

*
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance
company against the award dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Tribunal’) whereby, the claim petition filed by the
claimants was allowed and the claimants were held entitled for grant of
compensation of an amount of Rs.26,35,904/- along with interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual
realization of the amount.
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.05 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M) 2
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2011 one Dinesh
Kumar (since deceased) was going to Gurgaon by motorcycle bearing
registration No.HR-30-J-0486 and was being followed by his son Tarun
Kumar in an Indica car bearing registration No.HR-30-C-3256. When
Dinesh Kumar (since deceased) reached near Goverdhan Petrol Pump,
Sohna-Gurgaon Road, a dumper bearing registration No.HR-74-5074
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) was stationed by its
driver-Raghubir Singh in the middle of the road without any indicator.
Dinesh Kumar (since deceased) struck his motorcycle against the
offending vehicle and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his
body. In the meantime, son of Dinesh Kumar (since deceased), namely
Tarun Kumar also reached the spot and shifted Dinesh Kumar (since
deceased) to General Hospital, Gurgaon, where Dinesh Kumar was
declared brought dead. An FIR No.152 dated 02.11.2011 was registered
under Sections 283, 304-A and 427 IPC at Police Station, Bhondsi against
Raghubir Singh (driver of the offending vehicle). On 03.11.2011,
post-mortem examination of Dinesh Kumar (since deceased) was
conducted in General Hospital, Gurgaon. Thereafter, smt. Kamlesh
Kumari (widow of the deceased) and Tarun Kumar (son of the deceased)
being dependents of Dinesh Kumar (since deceased) filed a claim petition
claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of death of Dinesh
Kumar in a motor vehicular accident along with interest @ 18% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.05 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M) 3

3. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle duly filed their
written statement to the abovesaid claim petition. It was their case in the
written statement that no accident ever took place as a result of negligent
parking of the offending vehicle by the driver. It was their case that a
false case has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle
by the police in collusion with the claimants.
4. A separate written statement was filed by the insurance
company. It was the case of the insurance company that the no accident
took place with the offending vehicle. As per the insurance company,
Dinesh Kumar (since deceased) was negligent in driving the motorcycle
and the claimants were not dependent on Dinesh Kumar (since deceased).
It was also the case of the insurance company that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license to
drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time and it was being driven in
violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5. The abovesaid claim petition filed by the claimants was
allowed vide award dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal. As per the
award dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal, the claimants were held
entitled for compensation amounting to Rs.26,35,904/- on account of
death of Dinesh Kumar, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver,
owner and insurance company jointly and severally, along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.05 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M) 4
realization. Out of the total compensation, 60% of compensation was to
be paid to claimant No.1 i.e. widow of the deceased-Dinesh Kumar,
whereas, remaining amount of compensation was to be paid to claimant
No.2 i.e. son of the deceased-Dinesh Kumar. A perusal of the award
dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal would show that a deduction of
rd
1/3 for personal and living expenses has been applied while calculating
the amount of compensation.
6. Aggrieved against the award dated 01.03.2014 passed by the
Tribunal, the appellant-insurance company has filed the present appeal.
7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant-insurance company is that in the cross
examination of respondent No.4 i.e. Tarun Kumar (son of deceased-
Dinesh Kumar), it has been specifically admitted by respondent No.4 that
he was earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month and he was self
dependent. Learned counsel submits that in light of the abovesaid
statement given by respondent No.4-claimant No.2 in his cross
examination, it cannot be held that respondent No.4-claimant No.2 was
dependent on Dinesh Kumar (since deceased). He submits that as
respondent No.4-claimant No.2 was not dependent on Dinesh Kumar
(since deceased), as such, deduction of one half (1/2) should be applied
rd
instead of 1/3 . Reliance is made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77 .
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.05 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M) 5
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.3 and
4-claimants submits that taking into consideration the facts of the case,
the Tribunal has granted adequate compensation to the claimants in
accordance with law. As such, the present appeal filed by the appellant-
insurance company is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and have perused the paper-book with their able assistance.
10. In regard to the only contention raised by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company that deduction of
one half (1/2) should have been applied taking into consideration the fact
that respondent No.4-claimant No.2 has himself admitted in his cross
examination that he was earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month and
was self dependent is concerned, it is not in dispute that a perusal of the
cross examination of respondent No.4-claimant No.2 would show that
respondent No.4-claimant No.2 has stated in his cross examination that he
was earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month and was self dependent.
Taking into consideration the abovesaid statement given by respondent
No.4-claimant No.2 in his cross examination, the contention raised by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company
is liable to be accepted and it is held that respondent No.4-claimant No.2
was not dependent on Dinesh Kumar (since deceased).
11. In regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company that deduction of
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.05 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M) 6
rd
one half (1/2) should be applied instead of 1/3 for personal and living
expenses, since respondent No.4-claimant No.2 was not dependent on
Dinesh Kumar (since deceased) is concerned, a perusal of the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma’s case
(supra) would show that if the deceased was married with a family of 2
and 3 persons, then the deduction towards personal and living expenses of
rd
a deceased should be 1/3 . However, the judgment of Sarla Verma’s
case (supra) is silent on how the deduction towards personal and living
expenses is to be applied in a case where the deceased was married and
the number of dependents is less than 2 and 3 persons.
12.
Similar issue came up for consideration before the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO-3411 of 2019 tilted as The New
India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ramesh Kanta Sharma and
another, decided on 24.02.2020. In the above said case, the Insurance
Company had challenged the award of the Tribunal on the ground that in
case of a deceased who was married and had only one dependent, the
Tribunal had wrongly applied a deduction of 1/3rd for personal and living
expenses while calculating the loss of dependency of the claimant. The
above said appeal was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
after considering Sarla Verma's case (supra) and it was held that a
married person, who had only one dependent cannot be equated with a
bachelor for the purpose of determining the deduction towards personal
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.05 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M) 7
and living expenses. The relevant extract is reproduced below for

reference:-
“2. The only point which has been raised in the present appeal is that the
Tribunal had erred in applying deduction of 1/3rd towards personal
expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that in the present case there
was only one claimant, i.e., the wife of the deceased, who was stated to be
73 years of age at the time of the accident. It was contended that in view of
the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, 2009(6) Supreme Court Cases 121, since the
claimants were less than two, therefore, half of the income of the deceased
ought to have been deducted for personal expenses while assessing the

dependency of the claimant.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant respondent No.1 has
submitted that there was no error in the award passed by the Tribunal and
that the Tribunal had rightly applied 1/3rd deduction while calculating the

dependency of the claimant.
4. Both the learned counsel, in support of their respective arguments, have
relied upon the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra). In the said
case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while
dealing with the question of deduction for personal and living expenses,

has held in para Nos.14 and 15 as under:-
“14. 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 [(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general
practice is to apply standardised 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 dependent family members is 4
to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family
members exceeds six.
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.05 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M) 8
15. 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 dependant.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will
not be considered as dependants, because they will either be
independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the

father.”
5. A perusal of the above-reproduced relevant extract from the judgment
in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra) clearly reveals that the
law has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that where the deceased
was married and the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/3 rd
deduction is to be applied. In para 15 of the judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma
and others (supra), it has been held that where the deceased is unmarried
50% is to be deducted as personal and living expenses and the reasoning

for the same was that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.
6. Applying the said analogy, this Court is of the considered opinion that
even where the claimant is one and the deceased was married, 1/3rd
deduction would be applied. Being a married man, he would be
contributing more to the household than a bachelor. There cannot be a
straight-jacket formula and a lot would depend on the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the present case, the wife, who is the
claimant, is 73 years of age, it cannot be presumed that the deceased
would be spending half of his income on himself. A married man cannot be

equated with a bachelor.
7. It is trite that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation
enacted to give solace to the victims of motor vehicles accidents who die
untimely or suffer bodily injury. Though in a death case no amount of
compensation can compensate for the loss of a parent, spouse, child or
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.05 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3749-2014 (O&M) 9
sibling, as the case may be, the Court is duty-bound to award a just

compensation.”

13. Reliance is also placed on the judgment passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO-3236-2007 titled as Daya @
Dayawanti Vs. Arjun and others, decided on 17.08.2023. In the said
case, the claimant was a widow and was the only dependent of the
deceased husband, this Court held that deduction towards personal and
living expenses to an extent of 1/3rd was to be applied instead of one half
(1/2). Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the
judgments referred above, even if, it is held respondent No.4-claimant
No.2 was not dependent on Dinesh Kumar (since deceased), the Tribunal
rd
has rightly applied deduction of 1/3 instead of one half (1/2) towards
personal and living expenses while assessing the loss of dependency of
the claimants.
14. In view of above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in
the award dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the
present appeal is dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of
accordingly.
(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
JUDGE
05.11.2026

Ramandeep Singh


Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable Yes/ No

RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.11.05 15:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document