r IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MACA No.151/2010 Date of Decision: August 27. 2010 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant through Mr. L.K.Tyagi, Advocate versus if SHIV LAL & ORS Respondents through Mr. R.S.Soni, Advocate for respondents No.l & 2. Mr. B.C.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? REKHA SHARMA. I. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated December 05, 2009, on the ground that while awarding compensation to the claimants, the Claims Tribunal has lost sight of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Saria Verma and others l/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 wherein it has been laid down that in a case where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are his parents, 50% is to be deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased. Here MACA No.151/2010 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified r 5 in the present case, instead of 50%, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3'"'' towards the personal expenses of the deceased. i At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that the Insurance Company had filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal with a prayer to contest the claim on merits but the prayer so made was declined and hence, it has no right to challenge the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. As regards the submission that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3"^, it is contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saria Verma's case (supra) does not lay down an invariable rule that in all cases where deceased is a bachelor, 50% has necessarily to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. As per the counsel, the same is liable to be varied depending upon the financial condition of the family which the deceased has left behind and the number of family members whom he was looking after at the time of his death. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death, left behind two unmarried sisters who were married after his death and his father is a handicapped person. Having regard to these facts and also for the reason that the Insurance Company unless it is granted permission by the Claims Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the case on merits has no right to challenge the award on the question of quantum of compensation, I am not inclined to interfere in the award. MACANo.151/2010 Page 2 of 3 For the fore-going reasons, the appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed. The statutory amount of ? 25,000/- deposited by the Insurance Company as a pre-condition to the hearing of the appeal be refunded to it. AUGUST 27, 2010 ka REKFK S^HARMA,J. MACA No.151/2010 Page 3 of 3 '4