JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Ms. A.G. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) against the Judgment and Award dated 07.12.2018 passed by the MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M) Guwahati in MAC Case No. 492/2016.

3. The factual matrix leading to filing of this appeal lies within a very short campus. One person died in a motor accident. His wife, his father, his sister and his brother jointly filed a claim petition before the tribunal. The tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 47,90,397/-. The tribunal further held that the father, brother and sister of the deceased are not his dependence and therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation.

4. The learned counsel Mr. Goswami has pointed out that though the tribunal had held that only the wife of the deceased is the dependent then 1/3 of the total yearly income of the deceased should not have been deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Referring to Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Mr. Goswami has submitted that this judgment does not say anything about deduction on account of personal expenses if there is only one dependent.

5. The learned counsel Ms. Choudhury has submitted that the tribunal has correctly compensation by deducting 1/3 of the annual income on account of personal expenses.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.

7. At this stage a brief visit to paragraph 30 of Sarla Verma supra would be fruitful. Paragraph 30 reads as under:

30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

8. So Sarla Verma supra is silent if there is only one dependent. Since there is no guideline in case there is only one dependent of the deceased it should be calculated in the manner as in the case of a bachelor. I have decided to agree with to Mr. Goswami on this point. Therefore, the calculation done by the tribunal needs to be modified in the light of the aforesaid observation of this Court:

9. In paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment, the tribunal has correctly held that the father of the deceased, the brother and sister of the deceased are not dependent of the deceased. In spite of that Rs. 20,000,00/- out of the total awarded amount has been directed to be given to the father of the deceased. The tribunal further directed to give Rs. 5,000/- each out of the total awarded amount to the brother and sister of the deceased. This view of the tribunal is contrary the view taken by the tribunal in paragraph 22 of the judgment.

10. The father, brother and sister of the deceased cannot be held to be dependent upon the deceased. Awarding compensation under the m