LAWS(SC)-2017-10-44

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI

Decided On October 31, 2017
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
V/S
Pranay Sethi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Perceiving cleavage of opinion between Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 660 : 2013(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 664 : (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 170 : 2013(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 659 : (2013) 9 SCC 54, both three-Judge Bench decisions, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa and others, (2015) 9 SCC 166 thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, and that is how the matters have been placed before us.

(2.) In the course of deliberation we will be required to travel backwards covering a span of two decades and three years and may be slightly more and thereafter focus on the axis of the controversy, that is, the decision in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 77 : 2009(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 373 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein the two- Judge Bench made a sanguine endeavour to simplify the determination of claims by specifying certain parameters.

(3.) Before we penetrate into the past, it is necessary to note what has been stated in Reshma Kumari (supra) and Rajesh's case. In Reshma Kumari the three-Judge Bench was answering the reference made in Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2009(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 908 : 2009(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 664 : (2009) 13 SCC 422. The reference judgment noted divergence of opinion with regard to the computation under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, "the Act") and the methodology for computation of future prospects. Dealing with determination of future prospects, the Court referred to the decisions in Sarla Dixit Vs. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179, Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 and the principle stated by Lord Diplock in Mallett Vs. McMonagle, 1970 AC 166 : (1969) 2 WLR 767 and further referring to the statement of law in Wells Vs. Wells, (1999) 1 AC 345 observed:-