In fatal accident claims, determining dependency requires careful consideration of family dynamics, and future income potential must be calculated based on relevant judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal challenging the award dated 21.12.2012 ("impugned award") passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the learned Claims Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation of Rs.21,44,916/- in favour of the Claimants (Respondent Nos.1-5) with an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation.

2. On 25.05.2011, Mr. Krishnan Nandan Kumar, the deceased, was travelling in a motorcycle as a pillion rider with his friend Mr.Yatender Kumar when a Maruti car bearing number DL-9CQS-0498 driven by Mr. Arvind Kumar Jain (Respondent No.6) collided with the motorcycle, as a result of which the motorcycle toppled and Mr. Krishnan Nandan Kumar came under the fore wheel of the offending vehicle. The owner of the offending car was Elecon Cargo Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 7) and the car was insured by National Insurance Company Ltd.

3. Mr. Krishnan Nandan Kumar was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre where he succumbed to his injuries. He was 25 years old at the time of his death and was employed with T. M. Inputs & services Private Ltd. as a shop demonstrator/promotor where he was receiving a CTC of Rs.11,778/-. He was survived by his mother, father, two unmarried sisters and a minor brother.

4. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads:

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

5. Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant seeking setting aside of the impugned Award on 3 major grounds. Firstly, the learned counsel submits that the calculation of `Loss of Dependency' was inapposite on several levels due to the complete lack of congruence with the prevailing law as substantiated in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr. reported as 2009 (6) SCC 121. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that the father and the siblings of the deceased were not his dependents by virtue of which they will not be entitled to any compensation. It was further contended that only the mother of the deceased was his dependent as the other members of the family would be dependent on their father.

6. Secondly, the learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the learned Claims Tribunal had erred in its appraisal of the income of the deceased. It was averred that the learned Claims Tribunal had assessed the income from the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2010-2011, which constitutes his previous income instead of the income earned at the time of death. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenged the income assessment by the learned Claims Tribunal to state that the previous income of the deceased is extraneous to the income of the deceased at the time of his demise.

7. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that in view of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Supra), the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. In order to buttress this contention, learned Counsel relied upon the following Para of Sarla Verma (Supra):

"14. Though in som