The main legal point established is that the deduction for personal expenses and the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 depend on the dependency of family members and should be based on errors apparent on the face of the record.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rahul Anand Gaur, Counsel for the original respondent now applicant for the review petitioner and Sri Satish Chandra Pandey, Counsel for the respondents - original claimants.

2. The present review petition raises issue of deduction of personal expenses and calculation of compensation being faulty. There is no dispute with respect to liability. The age of the deceased is 21 years which is not in dispute.

3. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner has heavily relied on the decisions in Sube Singh and another Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and others, reported in 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 126. Learned counsel has also relied on the decision titled Meena Pawaia and others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others, published in 2021 LawSuit (SC) 743; The learned counsel for review petitioner has even placed reliance on Suresh Chandra Bagmal Doshi and another Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and others, 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 357; and Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya and another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 0 Supreme (All) 1277, so as to contend that the deduction for personal expenses of a bachelor has to be only one half and the appeal court under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 cannot deduct one-fourth even if there are more dependents as sisters and brothers and father cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased. The learned counsel for review petitioner has contended that this is error apparent on the record and requires to be reviewed.

4. The judgments relied by Sri Gaur appearing for the applicant - respondent are considered by us and the submission that in case of death of bachelor 1/2 and not 1/4th be deducted for personal expenses is not the law propounded. It is normally dependent on how many dependents are on the deceased.

5. It is submitted by the Counsel for the review petitioner that the deceased was a bachelor and the father was an earning member and hence deduction of 1/4th should not have been made, it should have been 50% of the income earned by deceased.

6. While considering the facts, we have categorically mentioned in paragraph no.4 "It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 21 years of age survived by his parents and brothers and sister who were minor at the time of accident. He was JCB mechanic. In the year 2014, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-, which is on the lower side. Further the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income. Multiplier of 17 was applied which should be 18. Further amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages has been awarded on lower side. Further rate of interest has been considered to be 7% which should be 9%. Thus, quantum of compensation is required to be enhanced."

7. It is submitted by Counsel for original claimants that the deceased was survived by his parents, brothers and sisters, who are minor at the time of accident. The deceased was bachelor. The family was dependant on him and, therefore, this Court had deducted 1/4th.

8. It is submitted by Sri Gaur, learned counsel for review petitioner that father of the deceased cannot be said to be the dependant on the son. It is submitted that claimants are under a duty to prove that father of deceased was dependent on the income of deceased. There were minor brothers and sisters though are legal representative of the deceased but is not proved that they were dependant on deceased, therefore, this review requires to be allowed in view of the following authoritative pronouncements:-

9. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Court said :

"A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error."

10. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, 1979 (4) SCC 389 the Court said:

"... there is