Legal representatives must demonstrate dependency to claim compensation; appropriate deduction for personal expenses in compensation should be one-third for married deceased as per established jurisprudence.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. On a Petition filed by the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the “MACT”), as Claimants, seeking compensation of Rs.4,41,47,970/- (Rupees four crores, forty one lakhs, forty seven thousand, nine hundred and seventy) only, on account of the death of their brother, in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on the intervening night of 28-05-2022 and 29-05-2022, at Khedum along Chungthang-Lachung Road, Mangan District, Sikkim, the Learned MACT vide the impugned Judgment dated 12-08-2024, in MACT Case No.27 of 2022 (Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others vs. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another), granted compensation of Rs.4,22,21,125/- (Rupees four crores, twenty-two lakhs, twenty-one thousand, one hundred and twenty-five) only, against the claim sought.

(i) Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the Appellant Insurance Company alleges that the Claimants are adults with their own sources of income and hence not even entitled to the compensation, hence the Appeal.

2. The arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellant are that, in the first instance, the Respondent No.3 being the married elder sister of the deceased was not dependant on his income nor were the Respondents No.1 and 2, his elder brothers dependent on his earnings. The deduction of 1/3^rd (one-third), made by the MACT, towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to be set aside and the deduction ought to be enhanced to 50% based on the assumption that, he was a bachelor on account of the demise of his immediate family comprising of his wife and children, in the accident. It was also denied that he earned Rs.36,00,000/- (Rupees thirty-six lakhs) only, per year, as claimed and deposed by the Claimants, since they only furnished the Income Tax Return (ITR) of the deceased, unsupported by any Bank statement, which therefore cannot be relied on as a valid and effective document. Learned Counsel further argued that the cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, was added by the MACT without basis which therefore deserves to be deducted. The Appeal therefore be allowed.

3. Opposing Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 contended that it is erroneous to argue that 50% ought to be deducted towards personal expenses of the victim who was a married man and cannot be presumed to be a bachelor by virtue of the fact that his family also perished in the accident. That apart, Respondents No.1 to 3 are entitled to the compensation claimed as they are legal representatives of the deceased and were at the time of the accident living in a joint family and solely dependent on the earnings made by the deceased. That, during the cross-examination there was no denial regarding the earning of the deceased which was placed at Rs.36,00,000/- (Rupees thirty six lakhs) only, by the Respondents No.1 to 3 based on the ITR of the deceased. The Appeal deserves to be dismissed as there are no errors in the findings and conclusion of the MACT.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 had no submissions to advance.

5. I have perused the entire records before me and considered the verbal submissions put forth by Learned Counsel for the parties.

6. It is a rather unseemly argument advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that, the deceased should be considered as a bachelor as his entire family perished in the