JUDGMENT :

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

SLP(C) No. 22134 of 2016

Heard.

2. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

3. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

SLP(C) No. 24163 of 2016

4. Heard.

5. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the present case, we modify the impugned order to the effect that the compensation payable to the respondents will be Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs) with interest as awarded by the High Court.

6. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

7. The balance amount, if any, be paid within a period of three months from today.

Civil Appeal No. 19603 of 2017 (@ SLP(C) No. 26263 of 2016)

8. Leave granted.

9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

10. The matter was earlier deferred to await the judgment of the Larger Bench which is now reported in 2017(13) Scale 12-National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.

11. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that in the light of the said judgment 40% increase on estimated income towards future prospects is required to be taken into account as the deceased was 40 years of age.

12. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that in absence of actual evidence of income the principle of adding on account of future prospects cannot be applied where income is determined by guess work.

13. We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guess work in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, in the present case, addition of 40% to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to be made. The Tribunal made addition of 50% while the High Court has deleted the same.

14. We modify the impugned order to the effect that the component of future prospects will be 40%. Needless to say that corresponding deduction towards personal expenses etc. may have to be made. On that basis the Executing Court may re-compute the entitlement of the appellants.

15. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellants that 50% amount as awarded by the Tribunal has already been received. The remaining amount may be deposited with the Executing Court/Tribunal or paid to the appellants within a period of four weeks from today.

16. Parties are at liberty to file their respective calculation before the Executing Court so that any dispute arises, the same may be resolved.

17. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29520-29521 of 2016.

18. Heard.

In view of judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017(13) Scale 12, the component of future prospects is reduced from 50% to 40%. Thus, the loss of income be now taken as Rs. 15,00,000/- instead of Rs. 17,55,000/-. Rest of the components will stand as per the impugned judgment. Corresponding deduction for personal expenses etc. may be made. The remaining payment, if any, be made by the appellant within a period of three months from today.

19. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

20. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34237/2016

21. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the issue whether the age of deceased or the age of legal heirs is to be taken into account for arriving at proper multiplier is pending consideration in SLP(C)No..../2017 (CC No. 7577 of 2017).

22. Tag to SLP(C) of 2017 (CC No. 7577 of 2017).

SLP(C) No. 36072 of 2016

23. Heard.

24. The impugned order will stand modified to the effect that component of future prospects will be taken to be 40% in view of judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi Ors., 2017(13) Scale 12. The other components will remain unaffected.

25. The remaining payment, if any, be deposited with the Executing Court/Tribunal or paid to the appellan