Point of Law: It is settled that percentage of deduction for personal expenses cannot be governed by a rigid rule or formula of universal application. It also does not depend upon basis of relationship of claimant with the deceased. In some cases, father may have his own income and thus will not be considered as dependent. Sometimes, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they may either be independent or earning or married or be dependent on father. Percentage of deduction for personal expenditure, thus, depends upon facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.K. Medhi and also heard Mr. R.K Bhatra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 Insurance Company. The order dated 16.12.2020 reflects that the service upon the respondent no.1 was duly served and in view of the striking off the name of the respondent no.3, the instant revision petition was ready as regards service. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1. Accordingly with the consent of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no.2, the instant petition is being taken up for disposal at this stage.

2. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Member, MACT, Tezpur in MAC Case No.226/2011. By the said impugned order, the Court below held that the petitioner is not the legal heir of Late Anowar Hussain who had expired in the accident for which the proceedings i.e. MAC Case No.226/2011 was initiated by the mother of the deceased Anowar Hussain. It is also relevant to note that vide the said impugned order it was also held that in the event of the petitioner is successful in proving her legal status in a competent Civil Court she would be entitled to have the legal right to seek her share in the compensation amount which might be awarded for the death of Late Anowar Hussain.

3. That facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition is that Anowar Hussain (since deceased) on the date of accident i.e. 26.01.2011 was travelling in his newly purchased Mahendra make Bolero vehicle from Guwahati to Tezpur driven by his employed driver Sri Parma Das. The said ill-fated vehicle dashed against the iron barrier of the railway track at Ketekibari on the PWD road leading to Tezpur town and accordingly the said vehicle was badly damaged and Late Anowar Hussain expired. Pursuant to the death of Late Anowar Hussain, the mother of the deceased filed a claim petition registered as MAC Case No.226/2011 before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tezpur.

4. During the course of the proceedings before the Court below on 28.11.2014 attention of the Court below was brought to the fact that the deceased was also survived by his wife i.e the petitioner herein and accordingly by the order dated 28.11.2014 the Court below felt that the controversy as regards the non-joinder of the petitioner as a claimant needs to be set at rest prior to starting of the cross-examination in the case. Subsequently vide another order dated 28.07.2015 primafacie proof that the deceased Late Anowar Hussain had a wife was brought to the attention of the Court below for which the claimant was directed to furnish the name of the said wife and to implead her as claimant along with the present claimant. Pursuant to the said order dated 28.07.2015 the claimant (respondent no.1 herein) filed an application stating interalia that the dispute as regards the claim of the petitioner to be the wife of the deceased Anowar Hussain is pending in the Court of the District Judge in Title Suit No.9/2013 and Revocation Case Nos.99/2013 and 100/2013 and as such requested that further steps as regards impleading the wife of the deceased as a co-claimant be kept in abeyance till the dispute is resolved in the said proceedings. The Court below vide an order dated 18.08.2015 fixed it for necessary orders. Subsequent thereto on 20.07.2016 the claimant brought to the attention of the Court below that T.S.(S/C) 9/2013, Misc.(S/C) Revocation Case No.99/2013 and Misc. (S/C) Revocation Case No.100/2013 were dismissed and therefore, requested the Court below to proceed with the claim petition by taking the evidence of the claimant witness no.1. On the same date the petitioner preferred a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC to implead the petitioner as one of the co-claimant. The Court below fixed 05.08.2018 for filing objection to the petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly objections was filed and pursuant