The main legal point established in the judgment is the appropriate deduction of personal expenses for a bachelor with dependents in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

B.N. Mahapatra, J.

This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 6th April, 2012 passed by this Court in M.A. No. 373 of 2001. The petitioner seeks review of the impugned judgment on a short point, i.e., if the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court applied 14 multiplier for the purpose of determining the compensation on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104, the Hon’ble Single Judge should have deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of deducting 1/3rd as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra).

2. Learned Counsel for the Review petitioner referring to averments made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Review Petition, submitted that this Court has rightly relied upon the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), to adjudicate the appeal. This Court while deciding M.A. No. 373 of 2001 has determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000 per annum as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 2001 SC 3218, and applied multiplier of 14 on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra). However, while making deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased who was a bachelor, this Court has ignored the principle laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), and deducted 1/3rd instead of 50% of the income towards personal expenses. Therefore, he prayed for review of the judgment by re-determining compensation deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra).

3. Dr. T.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellants submitted that as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), so far deduction towards personal expenses in case of a bachelor is concerned is not always 50% of the income. There is some exception which is indicated in paragraph 15 of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), wherein it is held that where the family of the bachelor is large and large number of younger non-earning sisters and brothers are there, his personal living expenses maybe restricted to one-third and contribution to the family is to be taken as two-third. Dr. Mohanty further submitted that in the instant case the deceased left behind his widowed grandmother, namely, Kalpana Das, unmarried non-earning minor sister Nirupama Das, aged about 14 years, unmarried non-earning minor sister Shantilata Das, aged about 12 years, which is evident from averments made at Column 22 of the claim petition and the deceased was the only son. Therefore, deduction of 1/3rd instead of 50% towards personal expenses is quite justifiable in the present case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bilkish Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, AIR 2008 SC 2989, held that as the deceased was a bachelor, he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of the total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. This view has been made applicable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Singh Vs. Kashi Bai and Others, AIR 2009 SC 2006. Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deo Patodi and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the deceased was aged about 22 years and only son of the claimants, who had parents and unmarried sisters. Hence, one-third was deducted towards personal expenses. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2185, Dr. Mohanty further submitted that if the review petition is allowed the amount of compensation should be enhanced on account of future prospects of the deceased which has not been considered in the impugned judgment.

Further placing relianc