The Chhattisgarh High Court confirms that, where the deceased bachelor leaves behind parents and an unmarried sibling dependent on his income, only 1/3rd of income should be deducted as personal expenses per Sarla Verma, thus upholding the existing Supreme Court precedent as binding authority for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs).
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1261/2022 of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs SMT. SANTOSHI VASTRAKAR |
| CNR | CGHC010345962022 |
| Date of Registration | 14-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR |
| Bench | Single Bench (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Chhattisgarh MACTs and persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation (Substantive & Procedural) |
| Questions of Law | What is the correct percentage to be deducted towards personal expenses when the deceased is an unmarried bachelor with a large, dependent family? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that where the deceased is an unmarried bachelor with dependent family members, including parents and an unmarried brother, the prevailing law as established by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma allows only a 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, not 1/2. The Claims Tribunal’s deduction of 1/3rd was therefore in accordance with law. The distinguishing feature is dependency and family size, not merely marital status. This application of judicially settled principles confirms that the exception for larger dependent families remains binding. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court referenced the explicit exception in paragraph 32 of Sarla Verma regarding large, dependent families, affirming a contextual approach rather than a rigid marital status rule. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased, a bachelor aged 23, was working as an accountant and died in a motor accident. The claimants (parents and unmarried brother) were held to be dependent on his income. The Claims Tribunal deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses, not 1/2, while awarding compensation. The insurance company challenged only this deduction. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, MACTs in other states |
| Follows | Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reaffirms and operationalizes the exception articulated in Sarla Verma: where an unmarried deceased leaves behind a large, dependent family (including parents and siblings reliant on his income), only 1/3rd of income is to be deducted towards personal expenses.
- Size and dependency of the family, not mere bachelorhood, is determinative for the quantum of deduction.
- Practitioners should emphasize factual dependency to justify 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses in claims involving unmarried deceased.
- The judgment is a binding restatement for MACTs under Chhattisgarh jurisdiction and persuasive elsewhere.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court’s reasoning centered on the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarla Verma, especially paragraph 32, which specifies that the standard 50% deduction for bachelor victims applies unless the deceased had a large family dependant on him, in which case 1/3rd deduction is proper.
- The Claims Tribunal correctly assessed the dependency and size of the deceased’s family, consisting of the mother, father, and an unmarried brother.
- The Court reaffirmed that the fact-specific context of dependency takes precedence over a strict application of the marital status criterion.
- No grounds were found to interfere with the Tribunal’s application of the Sarla Verma exception; thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Insurance Company):
- Contended that, since the deceased was unmarried, 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses is mandated per Sarla Verma.
- Argued that the Tribunal erred by deducting only 1/3rd, resulting in inflated compensation.
Respondents (Claimants):
- Submitted that the Tribunal awarded just and fair compensation after proper consideration.
- Countered that the factual dependency justified the 1/3rd deduction, in accordance with Sarla Verma.
Factual Background
The deceased, a 23-year-old bachelor employed as an accountant, died in a motor accident. The claimants—his parents and unmarried brother—filed for compensation, asserting that all were dependent on his income. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards the deceased’s personal expenses and awarded compensation. The insurance company limited its appeal to challenging this 1/3rd deduction, seeking application of a 1/2 deduction.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governs appeals from decisions of the Claims Tribunal.
- The Court applied the Supreme Court’s interpretation of appropriate deduction for personal expenses under compensation calculations for fatal accident victims, as laid down under relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and clarified in Sarla Verma.
- No novel statutory interpretation or “reading down” was undertaken, but the jurisprudence was applied contextually.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded as this is a single-judge bench judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directives were issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law (Sarla Verma) reaffirmed and applied to the claimed factual scenario.
Citations
- Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121
- Neutral citation for this judgment: 2025:CGHC:45024
- Report Status: NAFR (Not for Reporting)