(Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.)
Saraswati Dhali etc. ________________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Rahil Islam and Ors. etc. __________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 5968-5972 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 36493-36497 of 2017], decided on July 3, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. In the present case, by a judgment dated 24.08.2016, the Tribunal awarded compensation for the death of the husband and son of the appellant and permanent disablement of the appellant to the extent of 40%. Ultimately, the sums awarded by the aforesaid judgment were:
“The petition of the petitioner is being allowed partly and Rs. 12,02,524 (Rupees Twelve lakh Two thousand Five hundred and Twenty Four only) are being awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party No. 2, the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Opposite party No. 2, the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby directed to pay the total amount of compensation within two months failing which the opposite party No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. will have to pay 6% interest per annum from 29.07.2011 the date of filing the petition. If any amount has already been paid then it will be adjusted in the main amount.”
3. The High Court, in appeal, however, while increasing what was awarded to the dead husband from Rs. 1,70,000/- (approximately) to Rs. 4,44,000/-(approximately) reduced the sums that were awarded almost by half to the appellant and by Rs. 20,000/- for the deceased son. It may be stated that in addition, future prospects were not looked into either by the Tribunal or by the High Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued before us that the aforesaid deductions were wholly unwarranted, and in point of fact the salary figures that should have been taken should have been much higher. He also argued that apart from reiterating what the Tribunal has stated, an amount of 40% of established income should have been awarded as future prospects both for the deceased husband as well as for the appellant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company when asked as to whether the deduction effected by the High Court would be justifiable fairly submitted to us that since medical expenses, in particular, have actually been incurred, the Tribunal appears overall to be more correct. However, he stoutly resisted the claim for increasing the salary figures of both the husband as well as the appellant.
6. We are of the view that in the interest of justice, the Tribunal’s figure insofar as the appellant and her son are concerned should be reinstated. Insofar as her husband is concerned, the higher figure awarded by the High Court appears to be in order, and the High Court judgment is therefore confirmed on this score alone. In addition, it is correct that future prospects have now to be awarded, given our recent Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi 2017 (13) Scale 12 at para 61(iv):
“(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”
7. This being the case, it is clear that in addition to the figures that have been awarded by the Tribunal in the case of the appellant and her son and the figure awarded by the High Court in the case of the deceased husband, an addition of 40% of the established income insofar as the future prospect is concerned will be awarded in addition insofar as both the appellant as well as the deceased husband are concerned. Ordered accordingly.
8. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36493-36497/2017
Saraswati Dhali ____________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Rahil Islam & Ors ________________________________ Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No. 140277/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date: 03-07-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shailendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Varun Sarin, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
10. Leave granted.
11. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
