AMITAV K.GUPTA,J. - (1.) Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 05.03.2013 in M.A.C. no. 1 of 2007, passed by the Principal District Judge cum M.A.C.T., Gumla, whereby the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- has been awarded with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
(2.) The appellant-Oriental Insurance Company has preferred M.A. no.152 of 2013 impugning the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below. It is argued that the claimants did not produce any chit of paper or document in support of the plea that the deceased Suchit Kumar Mahto @ Satan, i.e., the driver of the Santro Car, was being paid a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month by the owner of the vehicle. It is urged that the court below has erred in computing or adding the daily allowance of Rs.100/- paid to the deceased as a part of the salary and assessing the income of the deceased at 7,600/- per month. It is argued that such allowance cannot be computed or added to the salary. To buttress the argument, learned counsel has relied on the decision of Gauhati High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Joga Bordoloi and Another, (2011) (1) T.A.C. 510). It is contended that in the aforesaid case it has been held that the daily allowance should not be permitted to be added to the salary. It is contended that the Tribunal has erred in adding 50% of income of the deceased towards future prospects. It is canvassed that the Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and Another, reported in 2013 (2) T.A.C. 369 (S.C), has considered and elaborately discussed the question of addition of income towards future prospects by following the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (2009, 6, SCC, 121) and held that addition of income towards future prospects of a person (deceased) working in unorganized sector is not permissible. It is submitted that since views had been expressed by co-ordinate Bench on this question, hence, two judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala and Others v. Gangalakshmamma and Another reported in 2015 (2) T.A.C. 867 (S.C), has referred the same for consideration and this question to a larger Bench. It is urged that since the contentious issue regarding addition of income towards future prospects of a self-employed person or person employed in unorganized sector, etc. is subjudice before the larger Bench, hence, this issue cannot be considered and adjudicated at this stage. Learned counsel has submitted that a Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Urmila J. Sangani v. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana and Others, reported in AIR 2000, Gujarat, 211, has held that the Tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed in the absence of any amendment made in the application.
(3.) On the above grounds it is argued that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases and judgments as cited above, the judgment/award of the court below is liable to be set aside by reduction of the award and the appeal be allowed. It is urged that the claimants? appeal for enhancement of the award is fit to be set aside.;