In cases where spouses share expenses and both are employed, a deduction of 2/3rd from the deceased's income for personal expenses is appropriate for calculating compensation.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. Sathaye, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/Claimant. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company submits that the presence of Respondent No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle is not required for disposal of the Appeal considering the nature of arguments proposed to be advanced about quantum only. Hence, taken up for final disposal with consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the said Act' for short) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Alibaug in Motor Accident Claims Petition (MACP) No. 138 of 2017. By the said impugned Judgment and Award, the claim of Respondent No. 1 under Section 166 of the said Act is allowed, thereby holding the Appellant/Insurance Company jointly and severally liable with Respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 1,06,94,116/- (Rupees one crore six lakh ninety four thousand one hundred and sixteen only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of claim application till realization.

3. Few facts necessary for disposal of the Appeal are as follows. The claim is filed for compensation towards accidental death of wife (Deepali) of Respondent No. 1- Claimant. The case of the Claimant in short is that on 04.03.2017 at around 5.45 am, when deceased Deepali was travelling as pillion rider on Activa scooter (MH-10/BD- 5890) from Dandphata to Apta, a tractor (MH-46/F-5278 - offending vehicle) gave dash to the said Activa from backside. In this accident, deceased Deepali got seriously injured, who was taken to hospital, where she succumbed to injuries and died on 06.03.2017. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Deceased was 27 years old at the time of death and was working as a professor in Sinhgad Institution of Technology, where she was earning an amount of Rs. 55,979/- per month. On these contentions, claim of Rs. 5 Lakh was made.

4. The Appellant/Insurance Company filed written statement contending inter alia breach of policy conditions. It is further contended that Activa was being driven in rash and negligent manner, whereas the driver of the offending tractor was not driving rashly and negligently and therefore, accident has occurred due to fault of the Claimant. The claim that Respondent No. 1 was dependent on deceased's income was disputed and claim was opposed as being excessive.

5. The Tribunal after hearing both sides held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor and giving dash to Activa from backside and the offending vehicle was insured with Appellant at the time of accident. It is found on admission that Respondent No. 1 - Claimant himself was driving the Activa Scooter at the time of accident. Compensation has been calculated accepting monthly income of Deepali after deducting the amount of taxes and annual income is fixed at Rs. 6,24,948/-, future prospects of 50% is added and 1/3rd deduction is applied towards personal expenses and finally multiplier of 17 is applied. On this basis, the amount as indicated above, is granted.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi for the Appellant/Insurance Company has raised two main contentions. It is pointed out that the Claimant has admitted in cross-examination that he himself is employed in a permanent service and earning Rs. 45,000/- per month. He has admitted that at the time of accident also, he was employed in private company and getting Rs. 30,000/- per month. He has also admitted that he was not dependent on the income of his wife. He has also admitted that deceased's job was of temporary nature. Based on these admissions, it is argued by the Insurance Company that when the claimant himself is almost equally earning as compared to the deceased, he cannot be treated as dependent and therefore, is not entitled to