IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL th ON THE 8 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. APPEAL No. 1187 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

1. SANTOSHI W/O LATE DEEPAK CHOUREWAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE NAI DESHBANDHU WARD TIKARI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. KU. ADITI D/O LATE DEEPAK CHOUREWAR, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE NAI R/O DESHBANDHU WARD, TIKARI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. KU. YUKTI D/O LAT DEEPAK CHOUREWAR, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE NAI R/O DESHBANDHU WARD, TIKARI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SUKHDEV S/O BABULAL CHOUREWAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE NAI R/O DESHBANDHU WARD, TIKARI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. INDRA W/O SUKHDEV CHOUREWAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE NAI R/O DESHBANDHU WARD, TIKARI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI PRAKASH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

)

AND

1. NILESH GANGARE S/O SURATLAL GANGARE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER AND BY CASTE KUNBI DEVGON POLICE STATION AMLA DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. GITESH BHAGAT S/O JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: (OWNER), CASTE KUNBI Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI R/O DEVGON, P.S. AMLA, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. IFKO TOKYO INSURANCE PRIVATE LTD.

(INSURANCE CO.) REG. OFF. IFKO SADAN C-1, DISTIK CENTRE, DISTRICT NEW DELHI (DELHI)

.....RESPONDENTS ( BY SHRI ASHUTOSH GUPTA - ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SHRI R.K.JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )

This appeal coming on for order this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section

173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by award dated 13.05.2022 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of First MACT, Betul, in MACC No.157 of 2020 for enhancement of compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly held that deceased’s parents were not dependent on deceased whereas as per law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, mother is to be treated as dependent on son. Therefore, tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd for personal and living expenses whereas in view of number of dependents i.e. four, 1/4th should have been deducted for personal and living expenses.

Therefore, compensation awarded by Tribunal be suitably enhanced.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance has submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is required. Hence, appeal filed by appellant be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI the case.

5. Perusal of impugned award reveals that tribunal in para 21 of impugned award has held that parents of deceased cannot be considered as dependent on deceased. In view of law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, in this Court’s considered opinion, tribunal has wrongly held that mother of deceased is not dependent on deceased. There is no evidence on record to show that father of deceased was dependent on deceased. As per record, father of deceased was aged approximately 59 years at the date of accident and there is nothing on record to show that father is unable to earn his livelihood on any ground whatsoever. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), father of deceased cannot be treated as dependent on deceased.

6. In view of above, number of dependents of deceased comes to 4.

Therefore, 1/4th should have been deducted for personal and living expenses.

7. Tribunal has determined deceased yearly income as Rs.3,36,504/- and looking to age of deceased and nature of job, 50% is to be added for future prospect. 1/4th is to be deducted for personal and living expenses. Then annual dependency comes to Rs.3,78