ANWAR AHMAD Vs. UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rahul Anand Gaur, Counsel for the original respondent now applicant for the review petitioner and Sri Satish Chandra Pandey, Counsel for the respondents - original claimants.

(2.) The present review petition raises issue of deduction of personal expenses and calculation of compensation being faulty. There is no dispute with respect to liability. The age of the deceased is 21 years which is not in dispute.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the review petitioner has heavily relied on the decisions in Sube Singh and another Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and others, reported in 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 126. Learned counsel has also relied on the decision titled Meena Pawaia and others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others, published in 2021 LawSuit (SC) 743; The learned counsel for review petitioner has even placed reliance on Suresh Chandra Bagmal Doshi and another Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and others, 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 357; and Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya and another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 0 Supreme (All) 1277, so as to contend that the deduction for personal expenses of a bachelor has to be only one half and the appeal court under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 cannot deduct one-fourth even if there are more dependents as sisters and brothers and father cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased. The learned counsel for review petitioner has contended that this is error apparent on the record and requires to be reviewed.