MACT | 50% Deduction From Income Of Deceased Bachelor Not Mandatory If He Had Dependent Parents: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Holding that a bachelor earning member of a family has a moral, social and filial obligation to support his aged parents and would not spend half of his income solely on himself, the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident claim, reducing the deduction towards personal expenses to one-third instead of 50%.Justice Harkesh Manuja said, "it has come on...
Holding that a bachelor earning member of a family has a moral, social and filial obligation to support his aged parents and would not spend half of his income solely on himself, the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident claim, reducing the deduction towards personal expenses to one-third instead of 50%.
Justice Harkesh Manuja said, "it has come on record that the deceased was survived by aged parents. Evidently, being the sole earning member of the family, the deceased was under moral and social obligation to contribute some amount towards the maintenance of his aged parents, in discharge of his filial and pious obligation."
The Court added that, in such circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that the deceased would have been saving a considerable portion of his income for the benefit and welfare of his dependents-parents, rather than spending the same solely for his personal use.
Justice Manuja clarified that though, according to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009), the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased comes out to be half, "but keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the above-mentioned reasons, the deduction is assessed at one-third (1/3rd) of the income."
The appeal challenged an award passed in 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, whereby compensation of ₹13,52,022 along with 9% interest per annum was granted to the claimants on account of the death of Bhupender @ Vicky in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.06.2016.
The deceased was a qualified electrician, having completed ITI from Hisar, and was earning around ₹50,000 per month.
The claimants contended that the deceased was a qualified electrician, having obtained technical training from ITI Hisar, and was earning around ₹50,000 per month. The Tribunal, however, had assessed income at ₹9,258 per month, treating him as an unskilled labourer due to lack of documentary proof.
The Court reiterated that MACT proceedings are summary in nature, strict proof of income is not mandatory, and some realistic guesswork is permissible. Social status, skill and nature of work must be considered.
It observed that a technically qualified electrician would have a reasonable and steady source of income, and assessed the monthly income at ₹12,000 (₹400 × 30 days).
Future prospects were added at 40% and Multiplier of 17 was applied, considering the deceased's age of 30 years.
Compensation under conventional heads was recalculated in line with National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) and United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur (2021).
Against the Tribunal's award of ₹13,52,022, the claimants were granted an enhancement of ₹10,64,778, thereby total compensation being Rs. 24,16,800/-.
The Court upheld 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization and said that if payment is not made within three months, the enhanced amount would carry 12% interest thereafter.
Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
Title: SHARDA AND ANOTHER v. NAGENDER SHARMA AND ANOTHER