Future prospects cannot be included in compensation calculations under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it operates under a structured formula distinct from Section 166.

JUDGMENT :

1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed against part of the Award dated 18.07.2019, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 295 of 2016.

Arguments of the Appellants (Claimants)

2. The sole issue involved in the present case is as to whether the learned tribunal has erred in not adding future prospects to the income of the deceased while granting compensation under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988).

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 14 SCC 1 (R.K. Malik and Another versus Kiran Pal and Others), and referred to paragraph 36 of the said judgment to submit that in the said case, the matter arose out of the quantification of compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and future prospects were taken into consideration while granting compensation.

4. He has further referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (National Company Insurance Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others), and in particular referred to the reference before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned in paragraph no.3. He submitted that the reference noted a divergence of opinion with regard to computation under Section 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the methodology for computation future prospects. The learned counsel submits that the said judgment dealt with computation of income under section 163A as well as Section 166, and therefore, in order to arrive at just compensation, the future prospects are to be taken into consideration as is admittedly applicable while computing compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has in particular referred to para 55 to 57 of the said judgment.

5. The learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid two judgments have been followed by different High Courts to grant compensation by taking into consideration future prospects. Those cases are:-

a) The judgment passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 250 of 2019 (Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Mayuri Mahesh Rane and Others) dated 23.12.2022, where the future prospects were taken into consideration by the court concerned and the Hon’ble High Court refused to interfere with the same by referring to the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

b) The judgment passed by Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited versus S. Muana and Others in MAC No. 17 of 2017, decided on 17.11.2017, and has referred to paragraphs 10, 16 and 17 of the said judgment.

c) Another judgment passed by Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Lalseli reported in 2022 0 Supreme (Gau) 365 wherein at paragraph 12(iii), the issue was framed, and answered in paragraph 19 by following the case of R.K. Malik (supra).

d) The Judgment passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11706 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Maman Singh & Ors.), referred to paragraphs 3 and 5, to submit that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also recorded that the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case makes no distinction between a claim under Section 166 and a claim under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act for assessing income.

6. The learned counsel submits that different yardstick cannot be taken for the purposes of assessing income while granting compensation under section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, on the one hand, and while granting compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the other hand.

Argument of the Respondent (Insurance Company)

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer, submitted that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments tha