Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
7.2 This brings me to the prospective income of the
claimant to be considered for the purpose of determination
of future prospective loss of the income. As can be gathered
from the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the
Tribunal has failed to consider the aforesaid component
despite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which
otherwise permits the Courts to take into consideration the
prospective income even in the injured cases for the purpose
of determination of future loss of income. Having noted the
age of the claimant as 36 years and the fact that the
claimant used to independently earn being self-employed, in
view of the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16)
SCC 680, treating the case on hand falling in the age group
below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% is required to
be considered for the purpose of determination of
Page 11 of 26
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:19:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1947/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
prospective income. Thus, the prospective income of the
claimant is determined as Rs. 4,500/- multiply by 40% is
equal to Rs. 1800/- plus Rs. 4,500/- is equal to Rs. 6,300/-
per month.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
As regards multiplier of 13 being applied, in
view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal ought to have
applied multiplier of 15 treating it to be in the age group
between 36 to 40 years.
1