JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

This Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2023 passed by learned MACT/Addl. District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in MACP No.02 of 2022, Shri Hukam Singh Rawat & Another Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, by which an award of Rs.9,41,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.10.2021 when the deceased was going to Tapovan for his personal work and while returning to his hotel Agrakhal in the evening on his Activa scooter no.-UK14G4426, around 6.30 pm, at the place Kharastrot Pulya Munikireti, Tehri Garhwal, the driver of truck bearing No.-UK14CA1062 came from the opposite direction speedily and carelessly and hit the deceased's Activa, due to which the deceased Rajendra Singh died on the spot due to serious injuries on the head, neck and other body parts of the deceased and the Activa was also completely damaged due to the collision.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that claimant no.1 along with his family was residing separately and claimant no.2, who, though was residing with the deceased, but was married and thus would not be entitled to the compensation so given.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the present appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the claimants are brothers of the deceased, and were married. Therefore, they were not dependent on the deceased and, as such, were not entitled for the award of compensation, which was granted by the learned MACT. He would further submit that the MACT failed to consider this vital aspect of the matter.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Smt. Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-

“31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Reshma Kumari & Others Vs. Madan Mohan & Another, reported on (2013) 9 SCC 65. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted herein below:- 

“42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding para is made out.

……………..

43.6 Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 41 above.”

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is proposition of law, that brothers being married and having their own family cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased younger brother. Therefore, the c