1. SLP (C) No. 22134 of 2016

Heard.

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

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

SLP (C) No. 24163 of 2016 Heard.

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/- (Rs. Fifteen lakhs) with interest as awarded by the High Court.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

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

2. Civil Appeal No. 19603 of 2017 (@ SLP (C) No. 26263/2016) Leave granted.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The matter was earlier deferred to await the judgment of the larger Bench which is now reported in (2017-4) 188 P.L.R. 693 (S.C.) National Insurance Co. Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

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

Heard.

In view of judgment in National Insurance Co. Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017-4) 188 P.L.R. 693 (S.C.), 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.

The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

4. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34237/2016

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).

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

5. SLP(C) No. 36072 of 2016 Heard.

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 Co. Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017-4) 188 P.L.R. 693 (S.C.). The other components will remain unaffected.

The remaining payment, if any, be deposited with the Executing Court/Tribunal or paid to the Appellant within a period of two months from today.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

6. SLP (C) No. 8306 of 2017

This special leave petition is disposed of in terms of the principle laid down in the order passed in SLP (C) No. 26263 of 2016 to the extent applicable to the present case.

7. Civil Appeal No. 19605 of 2017 (@ SLP (C) No. 37617 of 2016)

Leave granted.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

It is submitted that the view taken by this Court in National Insurance Co. Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017-4) 188 P.L.R. 693 (S.C.), is no bar to future prospects being taken at level higher than 25% in case the deceased above 40 years or 50% in case the deceased was below 40 years if evidence on record so warrants. It is submitted that standardization may be the increase based on presumption but when there is an actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/Court that future prospects was higher than the standard percentage, there is no bar to the Court/Tribunal awarding higher compensation on that basis.

We find merit in the submission.

In the present case, the tribunal has applied the correct principle of law and made the assessment of income by adding the component of future prospects higher than the standard percentage. The High Court held that the Tribunal could not have gone beyond the standard percentage. To that extent, the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the Tribunal.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

8. Civil Appeal No. 19606/2017 (@ SLP (C) No. 7241 of 2017)

Leave granted.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

In view of judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017-4) 188 P.L.R. 693 (S.C.), the Appellant(s) will be entitled of 50% increase of the income for future prospects. The income have to be reduced by the deduction towards personal expenses and towards the income tax as applicable. The calculation on that basis may be made by the Executing Court/Trial Court. The additional amount of compensation, if any, may be paid within a period of three months from today.

Civil Appeal No. 12046 of 2017 Tag to SLP (C) No. 13093 of 2017 etc.

Civil Appeal No. 8611 of 2017

Heard.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, any amount already received by the Appellants will not be liable to be refunded.