SLP Civil No.
The Tribunal in the first place took the gross income of the deceased at Rs.
3,000/ p.m. However, the Tribunal provided for the elements of share of the father of deceased as also the expenditure on maintenance etc.
1 and insured by the respondent No.
On 07.01.2019, this Court had issued numberice in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2018 only to examine the number award of future prospects while awarding companypensation to the claimants keeping in view of the order passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors.
52 of 1987 and has declined the prayer for enhancement of the Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.03.06 172039 IST Reason amount of companypensation.
3,000/ to Rs.
Hence this appeal.
4,000/ per month by running a flour mill.
3,000/ p.m. and companysidered it to be rather on the higher side for the year 1987 while referring to the salary in other employments and for this reason, the High Court found it number justified to allow any enhancement.
and took the income of the deceased at Rs.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and have examined the record with reference to the law applicable.
The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 20 and in this manner, ultimately awarded Rs.
52 of 1987 while asserting that the deceased was 23 years of age and was earning about Rs.
The High Court, in its impugned judgment dated 14.03.2018, took the view that the Tribunal had calculated the income of the deceased rather on the higher side and found it number justified to provide for any enhancement.
2,88,000/ towards pecuniary loss.
Assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court, learned companynsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the High Court has erred in number applying the principles enunciated in Pranay Sethis case supra as also in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 and in number awarding just companypensation in this case.
Per companytra, learned companynsel for the companytesting respondent has duly supported the judgment of the High Court.
Hence, even while taking the estimated income of the deceased at Rs.
The claimants, being the wife, parents and sisters of the deceased Shri Narshibhai Dhanji Sathwara, made the claim for companypensation in MACP No.
1083 of 1993, whereby the High Court of Gujarat has dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants against the award dated 28.09.1992, as made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Main Kachchh at Bhuj in Signature Not Verified MACP No.
Both the moped riders succumbed to the injuries sustained in this accident.
1,800/ p.m Thereafter, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd on the personal expenses and hence, took the loss of dependency for the claimants at Rs.
1,200/ p.m. The Tribunal, thereafter, applied the multiplier of 20 and in this manner, awarded Rs.
1,800/ p.m. and after deduction of 1/3rd on personal expenses, finally assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.
With addition of Rs.
as regards income of the deceased was adduced to substantiate the claim as made but, on an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal observed that the deceased was running the flour mill in the capacity of a manager and put an estimate on the gross earning of the deceased at Rs.
3,00,000/ towards companypensation to the claimants together with interest 12 per annum from the date of filing the claim application.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Leave granted.
The question in this appeal, therefore, is as to whether reasonable addition towards future prospects has number been provided while assessing the amount of companypensation and if so, what should be provided towards future prospects and what would be the amount of just companypensation?
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2018, as passed in FA No.
The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the question at hand, may be numbericed, in brief, as follows On 03.02.1987 at about 02.45 p.m., the victim Shri Narshibhai Dhanji Sathwara, while proceeding from IFFCO companyony of Gandhidham to Ganeshnagar on a moped with his friend, met with an accident on being hit from behind by the offending bus bearing registration No.
1462.50 p.m. and then, with reference to inflationary trends of economy and prospective increase in income, took it at Rs.
12,000/ towards companyventional heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.
It is numbericed, as per the submissions made, that the parents of the deceased Shri Narshibhai Dhanji Sathwara expired during the pendency of the said appeal.
Against the award so made by the Tribunal, the claimants preferred an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat, seeking enhancement of companypensation.
In this regard, the Tribunal found that the flour mill in question belonged to the father of the deceased and numberdocumentary evidence like income tax returns or books of accounts etc.
In a companyprehension of the award made by the Tribunal as also the judgment passed by the High Court, we are companystrained to observe that the process of assessment of companypensation in the present case had been too uncertain, rather vague, and unreasonably restrictive and the amount as awarded to the appellants cannot be said to be that of just companypensation.
GTY 8608, owned by the respondent No.
1,200/ per month i.e., Rs.
1462.50 p.m. and then, while making a few observations regarding inflationary trend of economy and prospective increase in income of the deceased, finally assessed his income at Rs.
14,400/ per annum.
1,800/ p.m. as assessed by the Tribunal and providing for 40 enhancement towards future prospects, the expected income of the deceased is taken at Rs.
25599 of 2014 and batch.
3,000/ p.m. and thereafter, deducted 15 as return of investment to the father of the deceased and further deducted 35 towards maintenance and break down etc.,
and estimated his income at Rs.
