* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MACA No. 439/2010 Date of Decision: September 27, 20L0 , suMrrRA AND o*?nroush Mr, s,N.par.iiilfofo",l'iirti" VCTSUS CHHOTU RAM AND ORS ..... Resoondents through Ms. Namita Sharma, Advocate / for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? REKHA SHARMA. J. (ORAL) . The only grievance of the appellants against the impugned award dated February 23, 2010 is that the Motor Accident Claims q Tribunal while computing compensation to the claimants has taken the personal expense of the deceased as Ll2 of his income instead of Ll3'd. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased who was a bachelor has left behind besides his parents, three unmarried sisters and that having regard to the number of family members, it was wrong to assume that he was spending 1/2 of his income upon himself. lt is, however, not disputed that his father is alive and working. Page 1 of 2 MACA No.4392OLO Signing Date:12.08.2024 17:00:54 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified I te Having regard to the fact that the father of the deceased is still alive and working too, I am of the view that no fault can be found with the deduction of 5OTo towards the personal expenses of the deceased. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. SEPTEMBER2T , 20].0 PC. MACA No.43912010 Page2 of.2