Personal-expense deductions depend on the deceased’s own dependants, not outcomes in parallel claims.

Gajendra Dadsena, a government teacher, died in a road accident on 18 January 2020.

His major son, Deepak Kumar Dandsena, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 36,09,676, calculating the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 47,943, adding 15% for future prospects, applying a multiplier of 11, and deducting one-half for personal expenses.

On appeal under Section 173, the claimant challenged only the one-half deduction, arguing that one-third had been deducted in a separate claim arising from the same accident for his mother’s death.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting one-half, rather than one-third, of the deceased’s income towards personal and living expenses when computing compensation.

2. Whether the deduction applied in the separate claim concerning the deceased’s wife required the same deduction to be applied in this claim.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident, while Section 173 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the deduction towards a deceased’s personal and living expenses is assessed by reference to the financial dependants left by that particular deceased; the deduction in a separate claim does not determine the deduction in another claim.

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s salary, future prospects, and multiplier.

It held that the one-third deduction made in the separate claim for the mother’s death did not automatically govern the father’s claim.

Applying Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the Court treated the deduction as specific to the dependants of the individual whose death was the subject of the claim.

It found the Tribunal’s one-half deduction neither unreasonable nor unsustainable and rejected the claimant’s limited ground of appeal.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s award was not enhanced.