AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alka Sarin, J
The present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the award dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh.
The only point which has been raised in the present appeal is that the Tribunal had erred in applying deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of
the deceased. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that in the present case there was only one
claimant, i.e., the wife of the deceased, who was stated to be 73 years of age at the time of the accident. It was contended that in view of the law laid
down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) Supreme Court Cases 121, since the claimants were less
than two, therefore, half of the income of the deceased ought to have been deducted for personal expenses while assessing the dependency of the
claimant.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1 has submitted that there was no error in the award passed by the Tribunal and that
the Tribunal had rightly applied 1/3rd deduction while calculating the dependency of the claimant.
Both the learned counsel, in support of their respective arguments, have relied upon the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra). In the said case
of Smt. Sarla Verma and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the question of deduction for personal and living expenses, has held
in para Nos.14 and 15 as under:-
“14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok
Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court,
we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third
(1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and
one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
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 dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they
will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.â€
A perusal of the above-reproduced relevant extract from the judgment in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra) clearly reveals that the law
has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that where the deceased was married and the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/3rd
deduction is to be applied. In para 15 of the judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra), it has been held that where the deceased is unmarried
50% is to be deducted as personal and living expenses and the reasoning for the same was that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.
Applying the said analogy, this Court is of the considered opinion that even where the claimant is one and the deceased was married, 1/3rd deduction
would be applied. Being a married man, he would be contributing more to the household than a bachelor. There cannot be a straight -jacket formula
and a lot would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the wife, who is the claimant, is 73 years of age, it cannot be
presumed that the deceased would be spending half of his income on himself. A married man cannot be equated with a bachelor.
It is trite that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of motor vehicles accidents who die
untimely or suffer bodily injury. Though in a death case no amount of compensation can compensate for the loss of a parent, spouse, child or sibling, as
the case may be, the Court is duty-bound to award a just compensation.
In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in upholding the award passed by the Tribunal.
The present appeal, which is wholly devoid of any merit, is, hence, dismissed.