Court’s Decision
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh reviewed the previous judgment and corrected the computation of compensation to align with the Supreme Court’s precedents. The review petition was allowed, and the total compensation awarded to the claimants was enhanced from Rs. 10,35,360/- to Rs. 10,87,200/-.
Facts
The petitioners filed a review petition under Section 65 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999, and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a revision of the court’s judgment dated 12.03.2024. The petitioners contended that the deceased in the case, who was shown as married, was actually a bachelor at the time of his death. Consequently, the deduction for personal expenses should have been 50% instead of 1/3rd. Additionally, the petitioners argued that the judgment had not taken into account the enhancement under the head “future prospects,” which should have been added at 40% considering the age of the deceased.
Issues
- Whether the deduction for personal expenses should have been 50% instead of 1/3rd, given that the deceased was a bachelor.
- Whether the enhancement under the head “future prospects” was to be granted at 40% as per the applicable Supreme Court precedents.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that:
- The court made an error apparent on the face of the record by treating the deceased as married, leading to a deduction of 1/3rd of his income for personal expenses instead of 50%.
- The court failed to apply the enhancement under the head “future prospects,” which should have been 40% based on the deceased’s age, as laid down by the Supreme Court in “Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.” and “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi”.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent conceded that the deceased was unmarried and that the deduction for personal expenses should have been 50% instead of 1/3rd. However, they contended that the existing judgment should remain unaltered in other respects.
Analysis of the Law
The court analyzed the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases such as “Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.” and “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi”. These judgments provide that, for self-employed individuals up to the age of 40, the future prospects should be enhanced by 40%. The court noted that these judgments must be adhered to by the High Courts and Tribunals as binding legal precedents.
Precedent Analysis
The court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in “Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.” and “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi”, which mandate a 50% deduction for personal expenses for bachelors and 40% enhancement for future prospects. The court also referred to the “Sarla Verma” judgment, which provides for a multiplier of 16 when the deceased’s age is 32/33 years at the time of death.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the earlier judgment erroneously treated the deceased as married, leading to an incorrect computation of compensation. The court emphasized that any judgment inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s binding precedents is subject to review. It further reasoned that the deceased’s future prospects should have been enhanced by 40%, given his age, in compliance with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to the revision of the compensation amount. Accordingly, the court recalculated the compensation, enhancing the amount from Rs. 10,35,360/- to Rs. 10,87,200/-.
Implications
This decision underscores the necessity for lower courts and tribunals to strictly follow Supreme Court precedents in matters of compensation calculations. It reaffirms that errors apparent on the face of the record, especially those that contradict settled legal principles, must be rectified through the review process.
