Navjyot Singh . vs D.T.C.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20973 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 33974 OF 2015]

NAVJYOT SINGH . & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

D.T.C. & ORS. Respondent(s)

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20974 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 9834 OF 2016]

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The main question arising for consideration in

these appeals is with regard to the application for

future prospects. The other question is on the

computation of income.

3. The Constitution Bench, in a recent Judgment

dated 31.10.2017 in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 25590 of

2014 & Batch), has held that even in the case of Signature Not Verified

self-employed persons, addition of income by way of Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.12.14 16:56:58 IST Reason:

future prospects is permissible. In the instant

case, the deceased was aged 42 years and hence, as 2

per the guidelines, it is not in dispute that

enhancement shall be at the rate of 25%.

4. There is a vast difference between the findings

of the Tribunal and the High Court with regard to

computation of income. The Tribunal, on the basis of

Income Tax Returns filed after the death and the

evidence tendered by the colleagues, calculated the

income at Rs. 1,46,618/- per month. However, the

High Court, having regard to the Income Tax Returns,

entered a finding that the monthly income was only

Rs. 59,250/-.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on

both sides and having gone through the materials

available on record, we are of the view that a

reasonable increase in the income is required in the

instant case. Of course, the appellants are entitled

to 25% enhancement by way of future prospects. On a

rough and ready estimate, we are of the view that it

will be just, fair, proper and reasonable to fix the

compensation at Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five

Lakhs). The same shall carry interest at the rate of

9% from the date of application. The amount already

paid shall be duly adjusted. The respondents are

directed to deposit the amount due as per this

Judgment within a period of three months from today. 3

6. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed

of.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ AMITAVA ROY ]

New Delhi;

December 07, 2017.

4

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33974/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-04-2015 in MACAP No. 887/2012 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

NAVJYOT SINGH . & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

D.T.C. & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 9834/2016 (XIV)

Date : 07-12-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY

Counsel for the parties Mr. Vikas Arora, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv.

Ms. Radhika Arora, Adv.

Mr. Puneeth K. G., Adv.

Mr. Anugrah Niraj Ekka, Adv.

Mr. S. C. Duggal, Adv.

Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR

Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file) 5