Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poonam

14. Initially, the trend of the Courts was to ascertain the life expectancy, deduct the age of the deceased and to award the compensation on the basis of the residual life span. The Courts started deducting certain sums out of the sum as arrived above on account of lump sum payment.

15. However, in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176, an attempt was made for the first time to award just and reasonable compensation on the basis of the multiplier method. The Supreme Court referred to the report in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1 and observed that actual pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing, on one hand, the loss to the Claimant of the future pecuniary benefits and on the other hand, any pecuniary advantage which from whatever sources comes to them by reason of death. Paras 8 and 9 of the report in Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) (supra) are extracted hereunder:-

9. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.”

16. The Supreme Court referred to Davies v. Powell, (1942) AC 601 and Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Limited, (1951) AC 601 and in Paras 13 and 14 of the report in Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:-

17. The purpose of adopting the multiplier as per the age of the deceased or as per the age of the Claimant whichever is higher was that if the Claimant is of much higher age, particularly in case of death of a bachelor where the mother or for that matter the parents may be double the age of the deceased, the dependency is to come to an end in a much lesser period as against the dependency of a widow or minor children of a deceased. In any case, the deceased was not to support more than his own life span and thus, by providing the dependency to the Claimants, it was held that the dependency has to be as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant whichever is higher.

18. The law laid down in Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) (supra) with regard to adoption of multiplier method and selection of multiplier according to the age of the deceased or the Claimant whichever is higher was affirmed by a three Judge Bench decision in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362. The three Judge Bench laid down that the multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the age of the deceased and the age of the parents would also be relevant in case of death of a bachelor in the choice of multiplier. In para 18 of the report of the Supreme Court in Trilok Chandra (supra), it was observed as under:- “18.…… Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier………”

19. There was some confusion as to the selection of the multiplier because of the multiplier table as given in the Second Schedule of the Act under Section 163-A which was inserted w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Some of the cases had adopted the multiplier as given in the Second Schedule. Although, the three Judge Bench in Trilok Chandra (supra) had noticed some clerical mistakes in the multiplier table as given in the Second Schedule, it stated that the said table can be taken as a guide. Noticing the wide variations in the selection of multiplier, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 noted the multiplier as adopted in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Charlie & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 720 and in the Second Schedule and in Para 40 of the report, it compared the same in a tabulated form which is extracted hereunder:- Age of the dece-ased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176: 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] Multiplier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra [(199 6) 4 SCC 362] Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra4as clarified in Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] Multiplier specified in Second Column in the Table in Second Schedule to the MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to the MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Up to 15 yrs - - - 15 20 15 to 20 yrs 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 yrs 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 yrs 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 yrs 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 yrs 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 yrs 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 yrs 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 yrs 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 yrs 8 10 09 8 8 61 to 65 yrs 6 08 07 5 6 Above 65 yrs 5 05 05 5 5

20. The Supreme Court with a view to having a uniform multiplier held that the multiplier as given in Column (4) of the above table should be usually followed. In Paras 41 and 42 of the report in Sarla Verma (Smt.), the Supreme Court observed:-

21. It may be noted that the Supreme Court had gone into the history of adoption of multiplier method and referred to Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Limited, (1951) AC 601 and Davies v. Powell, (1942) AC 601.

22. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 related to the death of a Scientist who died leaving behind his widow, three minor children, parents and grandfather. Thus, the Supreme Court while laying down that the multiplier has to be adopted as per Column 4 of the table as per the age of the deceased, was generally referring to the award of compensation in cases of death of a person who had a family consisting of widow, children and parents. Of course, general principles with regard to award of compensation in case of death of a bachelor were also laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.), but it was not specifically laid down that even in the case of death of a bachelor, the age of the Claimants who may be aged parents will be totally irrelevant.

23. However, in Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2012) 11 SCC 738, the Supreme Court stated that the selection of the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. It was a case which related to the death of a bachelor.

24. On account of divergence of opinion in the earlier cases, a reference to a larger Bench was made by a two Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2009) 13 SCC 422. The question of award of compensation in relation to multiplier and future prospects was gone into at great length by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65. The two referred questions by Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2009) 13 SCC 422 were:- “1.1. Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the 1988 Act”) should be scrupulously applied in all cases” and

1.2. Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?”

25. While answering the points, in Para 43, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “43. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows:

43.1. In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above.

43.2. In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years.

43.3. As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act.

43.4. The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 for determination of compensation in cases of death…..”

26. In Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, these were general observations that the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma (Smt.) have to be followed. In Sarla Verma (Smt.), it was laid down that having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the active multiplier should be selected and the multiplier should be chosen from the table with reference to the age of the deceased. As I have observed above, it was not the intention in Sarla Verma (Smt.) to apply the multiplier of 18 in case of death of a bachelor aged 25 years where the dependants may only be the aged parents. Thus, in Reshma Kumari also, it was not laid down that the multiplier has to be according to the age of the deceased even when the deceased is a bachelor having dependency of the parents only.

27. Of course, in M. Mansoor & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., (2013) 15 SCC 603, the two Judge Bench observed that the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased and even in case of death of a bachelor aged 24 years, the multiplier will be

18.

28. However, there is a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1 wherein a bachelor aged 25 years lost his life in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 11.11.2002. The Claims Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17, as per the age of the deceased (25 years). On appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited before the High Court, it was contented that the multiplier has to be as per the age of the Claimants (in that case) and not as per the age of the deceased. The Division Bench of High Court of Uttarakhand declined to accept the contention and dismissed the appeal. In the SLP filed by the Insurance Company, the multiplier of 17 was reduced to „5‟ on the age of the mother of the deceased being 65 years.

29. Also, in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma & Anr., (2015)2 SCC 180, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the questions of multiplier and the appropriate multiplier in case of death of a bachelor in the said case was taken as 13, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased. Para 11 of the report is extracted hereunder:-

30. Thus, right from the two Judge Bench decision in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176, which for the first time held that the multiplier method is the best way of awarding just compensation, which was approved in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362, wherein it was held that the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant whichever is higher, which is reiterated in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1 by applying the multiplier as per the age of the mother of the deceased (bachelor), the consensus of the larger Bench decisions seems to be that the multiplier has to be selected as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant whichever is higher. The judgment in Vijay Laxmi & Anr. v. Binod Kumar Yadav & Ors., ILR (2012) 6 DEL 447 has thus, correctly interpreted the law. Three Judge Bench decision in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362 shall be taken as a binding precedent in the matter of selection of multiplier as per the age of the deceased or the Claimants.

31. Moreover, even if there is divergence of opinion in subsequent two Judge Bench decisions or three Judge Bench decisions (although there is no divergence by three Judge Bench decisions), the law laid down by three Judge Bench in Trilok Chandra (supra) shall be taken as a binding precedent. In this connection, a reference may be made to Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 673, wherein, in para 12, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

32. Similarly, in Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94, in para 27, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

33. Also, in Union of India and Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, while holding that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength, it was held that the Bench of Co-ordinate strength can only make a reference to a larger Bench. In para 9 of the report, the Supreme Court held as under:-

11. The learned counsel for the Appellant urges that the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Munna Lal Jain & Anr. (supra) being the latest decision shall be a binding precedent.

12. This Court in Maneesha Karantak & Ors. (supra) had laid down that the three Judge Bench decision in Trilok Chandra (supra) shall be a binding precedent. The logic of taking the age of the deceased or the Claimant as laid down in Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) (supra) and Trilok Chandara, (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in Munna Lal Jain & Anr. (supra). Otherwise also, in view of the judgment in Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 and Union of India and Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, the law laid down in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362 shall be taken as binding precedent.

13. Thus, in the instant case, the age of the mother will have to be taken for selection of multiplier. As per the Voter Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India, the age of Smt. Poonam, mother of the deceased was 45 years. Thus, the appropriate multiplier will be 14 instead of 17 as adopted by the Claims Tribunal.

MULTIPLICAND

14. In the Claim Petition, the Claimants averred that deceased Nitin Raj was working as a Junior Desk Incharge in ‘Dainik Janwani Samachar Patra’, Branch office, Meerut U.P. and was getting a salary of `20,000/- per month.

15. In order to prove the averments, the Claimant filed her Affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and testified about the averments made in the Claim Petition. In her cross-examination, a simple suggestion was given to PW-1 that she had not placed on record any proof of income of her son Nitin Raj. No suggestion was given to PW-1 that the deceased was not employed in ‘Dainik Janwani Samachar Patra’ or was not getting a salary of `20,000/- per month.

16. There is another aspect of the matter. The Claims Tribunal had held that the Claimants had failed to prove that the deceased was working in ‘Dainik Janwani Samachar Patra’. It further held that the deceased was a Graduate and therefore, it proceeded to award compensation on the minimum wages of a Graduate. It may, however, be noted that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was a Graduate. In fact, the deceased had completed his Graduation in Arts from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in the year 2006. He had scored second division in BA. The deceased then did his M.A. and proceeded to obtain a Post-Graduate Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication (MJMC) again from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. It appears that it was on the basis of his diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication that he got employment as Junior Desk Incharge in ‘Dainik Janwani Samachar Patra’. Although, PW-1’s testimony that the deceased was working in ‘Dainik Janwani Samachar Patra‟ and was earning `20,000/- per month was not seriously challenged, but then even if it is assumed that the deceased’s employment was not proved, it is well settled that the compensation towards loss of dependency can be awarded on the basis of the potential income of the deceased.

17. In the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by LRs. v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 (5) SCC 667, death of a young boy aged 20 years took place in an accident which happened in the year 1972. The deceased was a student of B.Sc Ist year (Biology) and a compensation of `1,46,900/- was increased and rounded off to ` 1,50,000/-.

18. In Ganga Devi & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., MAC APP. 359/2008, decided by this Court on 23.11.2009, which related to the death of a student (studying medicine) who was doing internship and was to be awarded MBBS degree in a short time, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of ` 9,35,352/- on the basis of the minimum wages of a Graduate. This Court observed that although the deceased was getting a stipend of ` 5,000/- per month at the time of his death due to the accident, he would have ultimately joined as a doctor at a salary ranging between ` 16,000/- per month to ` 25,000/- per month. Thus, the average monthly income of the deceased was taken as ` 18,000/- and after adding 50% towards future prospects, the compensation was enhanced to ` 21,36,000/-.

19. In Ramesh Chand Joshi v. New India Assurance Company, MAC APP.212-213/2006, decided on 20.01.2010 this Court took the potential income of a BE (Bio-Technology) First Year student of Delhi College of Engineering (DCE) as `38,333/- per month.

20. In the instant case, deceased Nitin Raj had obtained Post-Graduate Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication not from any premier University or Institution. Therefore, I will take the potential income of the deceased to be `20,000/- per month.

FUTURE PROSPECTS

21. As far as future prospects are concerned, there is no evidence on record that the deceased had bright future prospects. The question of grant of future prospects was dealt with by this Court at great length in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi and Ors., MAC APP No. 189/ 2014, decided on 12.01.2015. Paras 8 to 21 of the report in Lalta Devi (supra) are extracted hereunder:

39. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.”

12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 673; Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94; and Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 to contend that in case of divergence of opinion in judgments of benches of co-equal strength, earlier judgment will be taken as a binding precedent.

13. It may be noted that in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65; the three Judge Bench was dealing with a reference made by a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, J.J.). The two Hon‟ble Judges wanted an authoritative pronouncement from a Larger Bench on the question of applicability of the multiplier and whether the inflation was built in the multiplier. The three Judge Bench approved the two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 with regard to the selection of multiplier. It further laid down that addition towards future prospects to the extent of 50% of the actual salary shall be made towards future prospects when the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and addition of 30% should be made if the age of the deceased was between 40-50 years. No addition towards future prospects shall be made where the deceased was self-employed or was getting a fixed salary without any provision of annual increment.

14. Of course, three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its later judgment in Rajesh relying on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (6) SCC 421 observed that there would be addition of 30% and 50%, depending upon the age of the deceased, towards future prospects even in the case of selfemployed persons. It may, however, be noted that in Rajesh, the three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra) was not brought to the notice of their Lordships.

15. The divergence of opinion was noted by another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210. In paras 14 and 15, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

practical application of the aforesaid principle. The near certainty of the regular employment of the deceased in a government department following the retirement of his father was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of income by taking into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of income, accordingly, was quantified at double the amount that the deceased was earning at the time of his death.”

16. Further, the divergence of opinion in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 was noticed by the Supreme Court in another latest judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors., CC No.8058/2014, decided on 02.07.2014 and in concluding paragraph while making reference to the Larger Bench, the Supreme Court held as under:- “Be it noted, though the decision in Reshma (supra) was rendered at earlier point of time, as is clear, the same has not been noticed in Rajesh (supra) and that is why divergent opinions have been expressed. We are of the considered opinion that as regards the manner of addition of income of future prospects there should be an authoritative pronouncement. Therefore, we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench.”

17. Now, the question is which of the judgments ought to be followed awaiting answer to the reference made by the Supreme Court in Pushpa & Ors. (supra).

18. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 673 in para 12, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms: (1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength. (2) [Ed.: Para 12(2) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./21/2005 dated 3-3- 2005.] A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted. (3) [Ed.: Para 12(3) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./7/2005 dated 17-1- 2005.] The above rules are subject to two exceptions:

(i) the abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and (ii) in spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of the Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] and Hansoli Devi [(2002) 7 SCC 273].”

19. Similarly, in Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 in para 27, the Supreme Court observed “27. However, even assuming that the decision in WP No. 35561 of 1998 did not operate as res judicata, we are constrained to observe that even if the learned Judges who decided WP No. 304 of 2001 did not agree with the view taken by a coordinate Bench of equal strength in the earlier WP No. 35561 of 1998 regarding the interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Act and its application to the petition schedule property, judicial discipline and practice required them to refer the issue to a larger Bench. The learned Judges were not right in overruling the statement of the law by a coordinate Bench of equal strength. It is an accepted rule or principle that the statement of the law by a Bench is considered binding on a Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. In case of doubt or disagreement about the decision of the earlier Bench, the well-accepted and desirable practice is that the later Bench would refer the case to a larger Bench.”

20. In Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 while holding that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength, held that the Bench of Co-ordinate strength can only make a reference to a larger Bench. In para 9 of the report, the Supreme Court held “9. It may be noted that the decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was prior to the decision in T.V. Patel case [(2007) 4 SCC 785: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 98]. It is well settled that if a subsequent coordinate Bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger Bench, otherwise the prior decision of a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength. Since, the decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was not noticed in T.V. Patel case [(2007) 4 SCC 785: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 98], the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court.”

21. This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harpal Singh & Ors., MAC APP.138/2011, decided on 06.09.2013, went into this question and held that in view of the report in S.K. Kapoor (supra), the three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari & Ors. (supra) shall be taken as a binding precedent.”

22. In the instant case, the deceased’s actual or potential income is taken as `20,000/- per month. Even if it is taken that the deceased was working with ‘Dainik Janwani Samachar Patra’, there was no evidence with regard to his good future prospects or that the deceased was in permanent employment.

23. Thus, in the absence of any evidence of good future prospects, no addition towards future prospects ought to have been made by the Claims Tribunal.

24. The loss of dependency will therefore, come to `16,80,000/- (`20,000/- x 12 x 1/2 x 14).

25. In addition, the Claimant is entitled to a sum of `1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, `25,000/- towards funeral expenses and `10,000/- towards loss to estate in view of the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54.

26. The overall compensation thus, comes to `18,15,000/-.

27. The compensation is thus, enhanced by `2,12,118/- which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

28. The enhanced compensation along with proportionate interest shall be deposited by the Appellant Insurance Company with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch New Delhi within six weeks.

29. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall also be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company after deposit of the enhanced awarded amount.

30. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.

JUDGE MAY 27, 2015 vk