Point of Law: Principle of "standardization" so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.

JUDGMENT :

1. An intriguing question, which surface in this appeal is whether a percentage higher than that indicated in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], as approved in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], can be reckoned towards future prospects, if there exists satisfactory evidence in proof of such higher percentage.

2. The widow, parents and daughter of one Biju P.Varghese, who met with an accident on 27.12.2003 are the appellants herein. He succumbed to the injuries and the appellants herein were the claimants in O.P.(M.V.)No.636/2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam.

3. Heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Mathews Jacob, assisted by Smt.Preethy R.Nair, learned counsel for the third respondent/insurance company. Perused the records.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, sufficient evidence regarding the future prospects of the claimants has been adduced before the Tribunal, wherefore, future prospects should have been reckoned at the rate of 100%; and not 50%, as adopted by the Tribunal. The standardization as regards the percentage of income towards future prospects made in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) does not stand in the way of adducing appropriate evidence as regards future prospects and acting upon the same, once the evidence adduced is found sufficient by the Tribunal/Court. In support of the above argument, learned counsel relied upon two judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court. The first is Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Others [2018 ACJ 5] and the second is Suresh Chandra Bagmal Doshi and Another v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others [2018 ACJ 1434]. In these two decisions, the precise issue as to, whether a percentage more than the standard percentage stipulated in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) could be taken, if there exists satisfactory evidence, is addressed and answered in favour of the appellant. On facts, learned counsel pointed out that, going by Ext.A11, a person who entered the service in the same cadre as the deceased is now earning a salary of Rs.91,640/-. Of course, the said person, Arun Kumar, had exhibited exemplary performance, for reason of which, he was given promotion within three years. However, the evidence of PW1 (Deputy General Manager) indicates that, any person having an Engineering degree will be given a promotion at least once in 5 years. Even on such a modest reckoning, the income of the deceased will be atleast doubled or more, going by the index available in Ext.A11. Therefore, the petitioner/ claimant is entitled to 100% future prospects is the contention. The evidence tendered by PW1, the Deputy General Manager, as regards the monthly and annual salary of the deceased is also relied upon by the learned counsel. Learned counsel emphatically pointed out that, no serious cross examination has been there, especially, with respect to the income component of the deceased, as also, the income component of a person who entered service on the same day, in the same cadre as the deceased.

5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the insurance company submitted that the purpose behind standardization of future prospects as a definite percentage of the income, as stipulated in Sarla Verma (supra) and as confirmed in Pranay Sethi (supra), has to be borne in mind, while appreciating the above contention of the appellant. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to paragraph no.24 of Sarla Verma (supra) to point out that there was huge difference in the percentage of future prospects being reckoned by various Tribunals and High Courts, and it is to do away with this uncertainty