FAO NO.2480 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.2480 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : November 27, 2009 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. ... Appellant VERSUS Ranjeet and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The instant appeal is preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited (herein referred as the appellant) against the award dated 2.2.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (herein referred as `the Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,71,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the claimants – respondents No.1 and 2 (herein referred as `the claimants'), on account of the death of Vinod in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant has displayed his grievance that since the deceased was an unmarried son of the claimants, therefore, the Tribunal FAO NO.2480 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] should have taken the self-dependency of the deceased at ½, instead of 1/3rd. As such, the Tribunal should have awarded compensation on the said parameters. Heard. Admittedly, Vinod died at the age of twenty. The Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.3600/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his self-dependency, it considered the net dependency of the claimants at Rs.2400/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 16, determined the compensation. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant regarding making deduction of ½ instead of 1/3rd as self dependency. Earlier there was a controversy with regard to the assessment of dependency of an unmarried son. There was no set principle to make deduction towards self-dependency in every case, but the Courts from time to time were in favour of examining the facts and circumstances of each case. It may be noticed that though the deceased was a bachelor, but he could not spend the entire income upon himself. Normally, dependency of the deceased is taken as 1/3rd, which he is expected to spend upon himself. Therefore, bachelor is no more on the different footings than the other deceased persons. Thus, after spending 1/3rd of his income upon himself, whatever he was to save, was to go to the family kitty. The Apex Court also took the similar view in case Bilkish vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr, 2008(3) PLR 270, wherein, it was observed as under:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the FAO NO.2480 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] opinion that the view taken by the High Court & Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 1/3rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family.” Thus, in view of the above discussion, it would not be unsafe to conclude that in case of bachelor also, the self-dependency could not be taken more than 1/3rd and the remaining income was to go to the dependents/claimants. Hence, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. November 27, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE