DIPAK MISRA,CJI. - (1.) Perceiving cleavage of opinion between Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 660 : 2013(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 664 : (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 170 : 2013(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 659 : (2013) 9 SCC 54, both three-Judge Bench decisions, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa and others, (2015) 9 SCC 166 thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an 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 Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 77 : 2009(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 373 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 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 Vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2009(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 908 : 2009(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 664 : (2009) 13 SCC 422. 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 Vs. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179, Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 and the principle stated by Lord Diplock in Mallett Vs. McMonagle, 1970 AC 166 : (1969) 2 WLR 767 and further referring to the statement of law in Wells Vs. Wells, (1999) 1 AC 345 observed:- "46. In the Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependants and the nature of job. In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact while determining the multiplicand this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jashuben, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 91 : 2008(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 62 : (2008) 4 SCC 162 held that even dearness allowance and perks with regard thereto from which the family would have derived monthly benefit, must be taken into consideration. 47. One of the incidental issues which has also to be taken into consideration is inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation into consideration wholly incorrect? Unfortunately, unlike other developed countries in India there has been no scientific study. It is expected that with the rising inflation the rate of interest would go up. In India it does not happen. It, therefore, may be a relevant factor which may be taken into consideration for determining the actual ground reality. No hard-and-fast rule, however, can be laid down therefor. 48. A large number of English decisions have been placed before us by Mr Nanda to contend that inflation may not be taken into consideration at all. While the reasonings adopted by the English courts and its decisions may not be of much dispute, we cannot blindly follow the same ignoring ground realities. 49. We have noticed the precedents operating in the field as also the rival contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties with a view to show that law is required to be laid down in clearer terms." ;