* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI i MACA No.400/2010 Date of Decision: September 08. 2010 SUKHVINDER KAUR AND ORS Appellants through Mr. S.N.Parashar, Advocate I versus MAHENDER KUMARAND ORS .... Respondents through Mr. A K Soni, Advocate for j'i respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? REKHA SHARMA. I. (ORAL) The only grievance of the appellants against the impugned j award dated March 27, 2010 is that the. learned Claims Tribunal while awarding compensation took the income of the deceased as ? 1,15,170/- but did not take into account the future prospects. The deceased was a photographer. The appellants In order to prove his income filed his Income Tax Returns for the years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. As per the 'returns', his income for these years was ? 67,750/-, ? 1,02,450/-, ? 1,17,800/- & ? 1,19,754/- respectively. The 'returns' so filed go to show that except MACA No.400/2010 Page 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified for the year 2005-2006when his income increasedfrom ? 67,750/-to ? 1,02,450/-,there was only marginal increase in his income for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. It IS submittedby the learnedcounselfor the InsuranceCompany that if one was to go by the Income Tax Returns of the deceased as noticed above, the grievancethat the future prospectshave not been taken into consideration by the ClaimsTribunal,has no basis. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that though there was no increase in the income of the deceased in the last three years preceding his death, but it was no ground to decline future prospects to him, for at any point of time, his income could take a jump as it did between the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radhika Gupta and Others Versus Oriental insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in 2010 ACJ 758, where also as in the present case, future prospects were not taken into consideration. The Supreme Court in the said case awarded compensation of t 13,40,892/- and in addition awarded ? 2,00,000/- on account of future prospects. In so far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of ? 12,54,300/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhika Gupta (Supra), the facts of which are similar to the present case, the appellants herein ai-e also awarded a lump sum MACANo.400/2010 Page 2 amount of ? 2,00,000/- towards future prospects along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the said amount. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased has left behind two minor children. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of ? 2,00,000/- to appellant No.l - Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur who is their mother as that would enable her to meet the education and other requirements of the children. For what has been noticed above, I direct the Insurance Company to deposit the additional sum of ? 2,00,000/- along with interest thereon with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within four weeks from now and the same upon deposit shall be released to appellant No.l. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of. REKHA^HARMA, J SEPTEMBER 08, 2010 PC/ka MACANo.400/2010 Page 3