In motor accident compensation claims, the deduction for personal expenses must be 50% when the claimant is the sole dependent. Evidence regarding the age of the deceased, when consistent with trial records, takes precedence over late-stage, unverified identification documents introduced during appeal.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

Heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. K.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/ National Insurance Company Limited assailing the Judgment and Award dated 18.04.2018 passed by the MACT, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1888/2015 directing the appellants to pay the award to the claimants within 3 (three) months from the date of Judgment together with interest as indicated therein.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal ignored the specific defence set forth by the Insurer by examining one defence witness, who was the investigator of the company. The defence witness deposed that the deceased had suddenly appeared in between the trucks while trying to cross the road and thereby the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased. The appellant also stated that during the investigation the Voter ID card of the deceased was discovered wherein it was reflected that the age of the deceased as on 11.10.2013 was 49 years, and as such on the date of the accident i.e. 30.01.2015 the deceased was more than 50 years of age and as such the Tribunal should have taken the age group as 51 to 55 and applied the multiplier of 11 and further an addition of 10% towards future prospects as per the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

4. Another ground taken by the appellant herein is that the Tribunal came to a finding that the deceased had left behind only one dependent and as such rd the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased but should have deducted 50%.

5. Further the appellant has also taken the ground that the Tribunal had made an error by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only per month since the claimant in the claim petition had stated that the deceased was a businessman and the Tribunal held that the deceased was a farmer and the P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was working as a cook in his dhaba.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant therefore, prays that the age of the deceased should be taken as more than 50 years, and the Tribunal could not have added 25% towards future prospects and also could not have deducted rd only 1/3 towards the personal expenses when there was only one dependent. It is therefore prayed that the impugned Judgment and award may be suitably modified/reduced by this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court dated 14.09.2022 passed in MACApp.698/2022, wherein the Court has specifically held that basing on the Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 case the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/3rd where the dependent family members is 2 to 3, but if the deceased is survived by the parents and sibling only the mother would be considered as the dependent. In the aforementioned case the claimant being the only dependent the Court held that the deduction should be 50% towards personal and living expenses taking into account the fact that the claimant was only dependent. Similarly in the present case the claimant i