The court clarified the criteria for income deduction, loss of dependency assessment, and future prospects addition in motor accident compensation cases.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the Award dated 19.7.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Pilot Court), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned `Tribunal') in MACT No.14369/2015 titled Sapna & Ors. v. Mohd. Azad & Ors..

2. The appellants were the Claimants before the learned Tribunal and are aggrieved of the compensation awarded in their favour.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd from the income of the deceased- Late Sh.Karamveer, who unfortunately died in the accident in question, towards his personal expenses. He submits that at the time of the death, the deceased had left behind three legal heirs, that is, the parents and the wife. The wife of the deceased at that time was pregnant, and later a baby girl was born on 25.06.2012. Unfortunately, the father of the deceased died during the pendency of the Claim Petition and therefore, he was deleted from the array of parties. Instead, the appellant no.3, who was born later, was added as a claimant. He submits that as there were four family members, including the unborn child, who were dependent on the deceased at the time of his death, only 1/4th of his income could have been deducted towards his personal expenses.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that leave alone any proof, there was not even an averment by the Claimants before the learned Tribunal, of the father of the deceased, Late Sh.Ghanshyam, being financially dependent on the deceased. He submits that in absence thereof, the learned Tribunal has rightly not taken the father of the deceased as financially dependent on the deceased, and deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants is unable to point out any averment, leave alone any evidence, before the learned Tribunal which would show that the father of the deceased was financially dependent on the deceased. In absence thereof, the father of the deceased cannot be treated as financially dependent on the deceased, and in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009)6 SCC 121, 1/3rd income of the deceased has rightly been deducted towards his personal expenses. I, therefore, find no merit in this challenge to the Impugned Award.

7. The next challenge of the appellants to the Impugned Award is on the learned Tribunal assessing the loss of dependency by taking the minimum wages notified by the State of Uttar Pradesh for unskilled worker for determining the income of the deceased.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was working for gain in private service in Delhi. This was so stated by the appellant no.1 in her affidavit of evidence before the learned Tribunal. He further submits that even the Election ID-card of the appellant no.1 reflects the residential address of the appellant no.1 at Delhi. He submits that this evidence was ignored by the learned Tribunal. He submits that, therefore, the minimum wages as notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi should have been applied for determining the loss of dependency.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that there was no proof led by the claimants/appellants herein on their claim of the deceased working for gain in Delhi. He submits that even the Election I-card of the deceased and the Aadhar Card of the mother of the deceased, that were placed on record by the appellants before the learned Tribunal, bore the address of State of Uttar Pradesh. He submits that, therefore, the adoption of minimum wages notified by the State of Uttar Pradesh for determining the income of the deceased cannot be faulted.

10. I have considere