MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC Vs. RANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1, 3 and 4. Perused the order under challenge.

(2.) The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether this Court having applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited .vs. Pranay Sethi and others,(2017) 16 scc 980. was justified in adding 50% towards future prospects. Our answer is "No". Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Though this Court followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra), however, while determining the loss of future prospects has added 50%, which runs contrary to the dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, we are of the view that the review petition is liable to be allowed.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the claimants, the income of the deceased is notionally assessed at Rs.8,000.00. Adding 40% towards future prospects, the total income is arrived at Rs.11,200.00 [Rs.8,000.00 + 3,200]. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% needs to be deducted towards personal expenses, which works out to [Rs.11,200.00x50/100]= Rs.5,600.00. Adopting the multiplier of 17, the compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency works out to Rs.11,42,400.00, to which the respondents-claimants are held entitled. However, compensation determined under the other heads stands undisturbed.