The court re-evaluated the computation of compensation, considering the element of future prospects of increase, income tax return, and non-pecuniary damages, and followed previous rulings to reach its decision.

1. Manmohan Verma, aged 48 years, earning his livelihood from a private business, died on account of injuries suffered in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 25.09.2008 involving negligent driving of motor vehicle described as truck trolla bearing registration no. HR 55B 9425, admittedly insured against third party risk with National Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant in MAC appeal no. 293/2011). His wife and other members of family dependent on the deceased, they being appellants in MAC Appeal No. 872/2017 instituted accident claim case (MACT 412/09/08) on 04.10.2008. It may be mentioned here that the original claimants included Smt. Krishna Verma, mother of the deceased who having expired during the pendency of the hearing on 03.12.2009, her name later stood deleted. The Tribunal after inquiry, by judgment dated 24.11.2010, granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 16,25,000/-, the liability to pay having been fastened on the insurer though it having been granted recovery rights against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, they being the other respondents in these appeals. The amount of compensation, thus computed and awarded, included Rs. 15,89,887/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love & affection, loss of consortium and loss to estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses.

2. Both the insurer and claimants have come up in appeal questioning the computation of compensation. It is the argument of the insurer that the element of future prospects of increase was wrongly added. On the other hand, the claimants submit that the income-tax return (ITR) for the assessment year 2008-09 as proved by document (Ex.PW-1/4) showed the gross total income to be Rs. 1,56,710/-. It is their submission that the Tribunal fell into error by taking the net income as the basis for calculation, the deductions being on account of permissible savings. The claimants also submit that the non-pecuniary damages awarded and the rate of interest levied by the Tribunal are inadequate.

3. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was “self employed” or was working on a “fixed salary”. Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter-alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.

4. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.), this Court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are “self-employed” or engaged in gainful employment at a “fixed salary” is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.

5. The ITR for AY-2008-09 (Ex.PW-1/4) was the only evidence reflecting the income of the deceased. Indeed, there is no proof of any regular earnings much less of the progressive rise in income. In these circumstances, the element of future prospects of increase has to be kept out. At the same time, the submissions of the claimants that the gross income should have been the benchmark must be accepted.

6. The loss of dependency is thus, recomputed as (1,56,710 x 3 ÷4 x 13) Rs. 1,527,922.5, rounded off to Rs. 15,28,000/-.

7. Following the rulings in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 S