The court ruled that the personal expenses deduction for an unmarried deceased with two dependents should be 50%, not one-third, reflecting legal principles regarding personal and living expense deductions.

JUDGMENT :

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.

MAC.APP. 328/2024

1. The Registry is directed to register the cross objections as a separate Appeal.

2. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 impugning the judgment dated 10.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,71,000/- has been awarded to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that he has only one ground of challenge in the present Appeal. He submits that thedeceased was unmarried and survived by her mother and one minor younger brother and thus, the deduction of personal and living expenses should have been one half, however, the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the deduction as one-third.

3.1 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal although discussed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., [(2013) 9 SCC 65 ] the deduction was wrongly applied the same since the family of the deceased was not a large family.

4. Briefly, the facts in the present Appeal are that the deceased was travelling in car which met with an accident and the deceased succumbed to her injuries. A Claim Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the mother and the younger brother of the deceased before the Tribunal as stated above. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of compensation of Rs. 19,71,000/- to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and had directed that the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation awarded. The calculation of the compensation that was taken by the learned Tribunal is set out below:

4.1 Paragraph 23 of the Impugned Award shows that one third personal and living expenses were deducted in the following manner:

“23. Since mother and one younger brother of the deceased are the claimants, which means that the number of dependents were two. The father of the deceased namely Pramod Singh Chauhan is stated to have predeceased her. Therefore, 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.

[Emphasis supplied]

5. It is not disputed between the parties that the deceased was survived only by her widowed mother and younger brother and she was unmarried. The learned Tribunal has after setting out the judgment in the Reshma Kumari case has set out the number of Claimants were two but however, has deducted one third expenses on an interpretation that there were large number “of younger non earning sisters and brothers”. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award is below:

“22. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased,necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under: