NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs PRANAY SETHI. Supreme Court, 31-10-2017
| Judge | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
| Docket Number | SLP(C) No.-025590-025590 / 2014 |
| Parties | NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTDPRANAY SETHI |
| Date | 31 October 2017 |
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 25590 OF 2014
National Insurance Company Limited …Petitioner(s)
Versus
Pranay Sethi and Ors. …Respondent(s)
WITH
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16735 of 2014
Civil Appeal No. 6961 of 2015
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 163 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3387of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7076 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32844 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16056 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22134 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24163 of 2016
Civil Appeal No. 8770 of 2016
Civil Appeal Nos. 8045-8046 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26263 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25818 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26227 of 2016
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2017.10.31
20:55:01 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
2
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 29520-29521 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 35679 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34237 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36072 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 35371 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34395 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36027 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8306 of 2017
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 37617 of 2016
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7241 of 2017
Civil Appeal No.12046 of 2017
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17436 of 2017
Civil Appeal No. 8611 of 2017
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, CJI.
Perceiving cleavage of opinion between Reshma Kumari
and others v. Madan Mohan and another
1
and Rajesh and
others v. Rajbir Singh and others
2
, both three-Judge Bench
decisions, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pushpa and others
3
thought it
appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an
1
(2013 ) 9 SCC 65
2
(2013) 9 SCC 54
3
(2015) 9 SCC 166
3
authoritative pronouncement, and that is how the matters have
been placed before us.
2. In the course of deliberation we will be required to travel
backwards covering a span of two decades and three years and
may be slightly more and thereafter focus on the axis of the
controversy, that is, the decision in Sarla Verma and others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another
4
wherein the two-
Judge Bench made a sanguine endeavour to simplify the
determination of claims by specifying certain parameters.
3. Before we penetrate into the past, it is necessary to note
what has been stated in Reshma Kumari (supra) and Rajesh’s
case. In Reshma Kumari the three-Judge Bench was answering
the reference made in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan
Mohan and another
5
. The reference judgment noted divergence
of opinion with regard to the computation under Sections 163-A
and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, “the Act”)
and the methodology for computation of future prospects.
Dealing with determination of future prospects, the Court
referred to the decisions in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav
6
,
4
(2009) 6 SCC 121
5
(2009) 13 SCC 422
6
(1996) 3 SCC 179
To continue reading
Request your trial