MANJIT KAUR Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed for enhancement of compensation. FAO No. 2990 of 2011 has been filed for enhancement of compensation on account of the death of Madan Lal, aged 28 years. The appellants are the widow, one minor daughter and the old parents of deceased Madan Lal. The Tribunal had held respondent No.1 liable for causing the accident and awarded the compensation under various heads as follows: -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants Manjit Kaur etc. has further argued no amount has been added for future prospects. To controvert this argument of learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has relied upon Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another reported as 2013 AIR SC(Civil) 1731 to contend that future prospects will be awarded only in those cases where the deceased had a permanent job but in cases where the deceased was self employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate and a departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. Paras 35 and 36 of the said judgment are reproduced here as under: - "35. With regard to the addition to income for future prospects, in Sarla Verma, this Court has noted earlier decisions in Susamma Thomas1, Sarla Dixit and Abati Bezbaruah and in paragraph 24 of the Report held as under:

(3.) THE issue before this Court is as to which of the decisions should be followed. This controversy has been set at rest in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Indo Swiss Time Ltd. v. Umrao and others reported as AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 213(1) where it has been held as follows: -