ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Issue notice returnable in four weeks.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has prayed for grant of stay. Regard being had to the totality of circumstances, it is directed that Petitioner-insurer shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) before the tribunal within four weeks and the tribunal shall distribute it proportionately as per the directions given in its award.

4. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, the legal heirs of deceased, Kamalesh Mewada, filed a claim petition MACP No. 194 of 2010 before the MACT, Kekri Ajmer, Rajasthan, Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") for grant of compensation amounting to Rs. 1,55,55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. On the basis of evidence brought on record the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 27,35,744/- with 6% interest payable jointly and severally by the owner, driver and the insurer.

5. As is evincible from the award passed by the tribunal, the aforesaid amount was determined as compensation on the basis that the deceased was aged about thirty years and his income was Rs. 13,300/- per month. The tribunal added 30% towards future prospects by placing reliance on the decision in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Limited and Ors. (2012) 6 SCC 421. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within thirty days before the tribunal.

6. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the insurance company preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2386 of 2013. One of the contentions that were raised before the High Court was that the tribunal should not have added thirty per cent in income towards future prospects of the deceased as he was not a salaried person but engaged in business. The High Court found that there is some contradiction in the decision in Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 and thereafter, observed as follows:

The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied on the case of Union of India and Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its opinion that in case a latter Bench of equal strength does not agree with the decision of a former bench, the proper course would be for the subsequent Bench to refer the case to a Larger Bench. There can be no issue about the Principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point. However, simultaneously the rule of precedent are also a life to the fact that, at times, the proper course may not be followed by the court of laws. In order to meet out such an eventuality, the rule is that the latter judgment should followed in case the former and the latter benches are of equal strength. Thus, this Court has no option but to follow the judgment and the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. (supra).

7. Being of this view, the High Court concurred with the opinion expressed by the tribunal pertaining to grant of benefit in respect of addition of income for future prospects. Needless to say, the other contentions raised by the insurer were rejected.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as there is a manifest contradiction in the two decisions rendered by the Benches of equal strength, the controversy should be resolved by referring it to a larger Bench.

9. To appreciate the said submission, we think it appropriate to refer to the decisions in chronology and what has been laid down therein. In the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court, while dealing with the issue of addition of income for future prospects, took note of the decisions in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176, Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav (1996) 3 SCC 179 and Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India (2003) 2 SCC 148 and in paragraph 24 opined thus:

24. In Susamma Thoma