SMT. MAMTA HASEEJA Vs. NITIN ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) It is also submitted that the appellants are entitled for adding 30% of the income for future prospects and besides this, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding adequate compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, etc., and therefore under these heads in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Asha Verman & Others v. Maharaj Singh & Others as reported in 2015 (2) TAC 299 (SC), the impugned award needs to be enhanced.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that enhancement of income for future prospects @ 30% will not be applicable in the case of appellant in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : 2009 (II) T.A.C.671 (SC) looking to the fact that at the time of incident, the age of the deceased was 54 years. He further submits that this issue of addition of future prospects has already been referred to the Larger Bench as to whether a person, who is self-employed or employed in a private firm and is not deriving any salary, will be entitled to future prospects or not? In this regard, he has referred to the judgment in the case of Shashikala v. Ganga Laxmanamma as reported in 2015 ACJ 1239. He also submits that there is no need to enhance the income as average of four years has been rightly taken by the Claims Tribunal.