AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Though this matter was settled before the Lok Adalat on a much lower rates but Insurance Company Officers had shown the audacity of not honouring the settlement, and therefore, this matter is being taken up for regular hearing.
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by appellants being aggrieved of the award dated 04.09.2024, passed by the learned IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (M.P.), in MACC No.1598/2022.
The major dispute besides quantum is in regard to dependency. The issue raised herein is whether learned Claims Tribunal was justified in making 50% deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased, namely, Smt. Sunita Chouhan, when she is survived by her son Atharv Singh Chouhan and two married daughters or it should have been one third.
Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that as far as son is concerned, he alone will be treated as dependent. Married daughters will not be treated as dependent, at best they will be entitled to loss of parental consortium. It is, therefore, submitted that one half deduction made by the learned Tribunal is just and correct under the facts and circumstances of the case and, thus, no indulgence is called for.
Reliance is placed on para 30 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121].
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Manjuri Bera (Smt.) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another [(2007) 10 SCC 643], to say that married daughters are not to be included while computing dependency. Similarly, reliance is placed on another judgment of Deep Shikha and another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1090], wherein it is held that dependency is not to be calculated in regard to married daughters.
Shri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Seema Rani and others (2025 ACJ 338), but Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, learned counsel submits that this judgment is per incuriam, inasmuch as, it has failed to take into consideration earlier judgment of Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera (supra).
This Court is not going into this controversy, because law laid down in case of Manjuri Bera (supra) is now well settled that unless a daughter is widow or it is shown through cogent evidence that she was dependent on the parents for her subsistence, normally, this Court will not consider such married daughter to be dependent.
However, the issue which evolves herein for consideration is whether in case of a married lady, even if she is survived by one legal heir, then whether the deduction will be 1/3rd towards the personal expenses or it will be one half.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), in para 26, noted as under :-
" 26. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part of the income on his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction got statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 ("the MV Act", for short). but, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline."
Thus, the line of thinking of Hon'ble Apex Court is that it is in case of bachelor one-half is to be deducted towards the living expenses of a bachelor and one-third is the norm for dependents upto 3 numbers and beyond 3 dependents, between 4 to 6, one-fourth and beyond 6 dependents one-fifth. However, there appears to be a grammatical proposition which has been emphasized by Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, learned counsel, but spirit of para 30 is that Hon'ble Apex Court accepted that after Trilok Chand's several subsequent decisions of Supreme Court were considered while deciding Sarla Verma's (supra) case and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that where deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third. Where number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 i.e. in my opinion Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of a married deceased person, deduction will be one-third upto three dependents.
Therefore, when this decision is taken into consideration and read in conjunction with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Anand Pal and others [SLP (Civil) No.7805 of 2022], where Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that in case of a bachelor normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself, this Court is of the opinion that since deceased was not a bachelor and he is survived by a son, then even if there is single dependent, deduction pattern will be of one-third and not one-half.
In terms of the aforesaid, now the computation of compensation is to be calculated. Deceased was an income tax payee. As per Ex.P/39, her return was for Rs.7,10,558/- (Rupees Seven Lacs, Ten Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty Eight). Net income was Rs.7,10,558/- (Rupees Seven Lacs, Ten Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty Eight). 15% is to be added towards future prospects as deceased was aged 59 years, therefore, total income will come out to Rs.8,17,142/- (Rupees Eight Lacs, Seventeen Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Two). One-third is to be deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased which comes out to Rs.2,72,380/- (Rupees Two Lacs, Seventy Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty). After this deduction, net dependency comes out to Rs.5,44,760/-(Rupees Five Lacs, Forty Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty). Multiplier of 09 will be applicable in terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's (supra) case and as also applied by the learned Claims Tribunal. Then total compensation comes out to Rs.49,02,850/-(Rupees Forty Nine Lacs, Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty). Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.39,69,306/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs, Sixty Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and Six), which when reduced, then total enhancement comes out to Rs.9,33,534/- (Rupees Nine Lacs, Thirty Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Four), which will be payable in favour of the claimants along with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of actual awards.
In above terms, appeal is allowed and disposed of.