Father cannot be treated as a dependent for calculating loss of dependency without specific evidence provided.

The deceased, Sh. Vikas Chaudhary (30 years old), died in a motor accident on February 21, 2020, when a truck (HR-55P-2740) hit the Scorpio car he was travelling in near Wazirabad Flyover

An FIR was registered under Sections 279/337/304A of the IPC

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 58,53,859/- with 8% interest, treating the deceased’s father (aged approx. 54-58) as a dependent and applying a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses

The Insurance Company appealed on two grounds: first, challenging the finding of negligence due to a delayed Mechanical Inspection Report; and second, contesting the father's status as a dependent

1. Whether the delay in the Mechanical Inspection Report and lack of visible damage to the offending vehicle absolve the appellant of liability

2. Whether the father of the deceased, aged approximately 54-56 years, can be considered a "dependent" for the purpose of calculating the deduction for personal expenses

The court applied the principles governing motor accident compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically regarding the assessment of "dependency" and "deduction for personal expenses."

It followed the established practice that only surviving spouses, children, and parents who are actually financially dependent on the deceased's income are counted as dependents; in the absence of evidence of financial dependency for an able-bodied father, a higher deduction for personal expenses (1/3rd instead of 1/4th) is applicable

Regarding the first issue, the Court dismissed the challenge to negligence, noting that an eyewitness (PW3) corroborated the accident and CCTV footage identified the vehicle

The Court held that a Mechanical Inspection Report conducted after 22 months carries little weight compared to the charge-sheet and eyewitness testimony

On the second issue, the Court examined the Trial Court Records (Aadhaar and PAN cards) and found the father was between 54 and 56 years old at the time of the accident

Since the claimants failed to provide evidence establishing that the father was financially dependent on the deceased, the Court held the MACT erred in treating him as a dependent

Consequently, the Court adjusted the number of dependents from four to three (wife, child, and mother), necessitating a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses instead of 1/4th

The total compensation was reduced from Rs. 58,51,859/- to Rs. 52,27,423/- (a reduction of Rs. 6,24,436/-)

The Court ordered the excess amount to be refunded to the Insurance Company and directed the release of specific lump-sum amounts to the wife (Rs. 15,00,000/-) and mother (Rs. 5,00,000/-), with the remaining balance to be disbursed via FDRs as per the original MACT scheme