1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service has challenged the judgment and order dated 10th October 1995 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Court No.18, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in MAC Petition No.330 of 1989 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on the date of the incident i.e. on 22nd April 1989 at about 12.30 PM the deceased was travelling in the AMTS Bus and while he was getting down from the bus the Driver without looking at the mirror started the bus with jerk so that deceased Punambhai fell down on the road and rear wheel of the bus run over the right leg of deceased Punambhai. He was removed to Civil Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The claimant, therefore, filed claim petition claiming the compensation.
3 The Tribunal considering the income of the deceased at Rs.600 per month arrived at Rs.6,000 per annum after deducting Rs.100 towards his personal expenses. As per Second Schedule the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and reached to Rs.1,08,000 as future economic loss. He has also awarded Rs.10,000 for loss of expectation of life and Rs.10,000 for pain, shock and suffering and Rs.2,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, Rs.1,30,000 was granted with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the AMTS challenging the same.
4 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Though time was granted, Mr Khan, learned counsel for the respondent is not present.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent is brother of the deceased and is not a dependent of the deceased and therefore the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the claim of the claimant under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore the same required to be set aside. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Para 31 of the said decision 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 even 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. 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.”
6. In the present case the claimant is brohter of the deceased and he cannot be considered as dependants. At the most, he is entitled for compensation under the head of loss to estate. Therefore, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is contrary to law and is therefore set aside. The original claimant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards loss to the estate and the remaining amount of Rs.80,000 is ordered to be refunded to the appellant – AMTS along with interest.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd