The case involves a challenge to the amended compensation portion of a prior Delhi High Court ruling. The appellant's parents perished in an accident close to Punjab. The National Insurance Company had insurance on the car they were riding in. The first appeal, which was submitted to the High Court of Delhi, claimed that because the appellant's mother worked for herself, she was not qualified for future prospects in her income. She will be liable for 40% of future prospects in her income even if she is self-employed, according to a special appeal in the Supreme Court that used a previous judgement to dispute this ruling.
In the instant case titled Rahul Sharma Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. The issue raised for clarification before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the petition to contest the Delhi High Court's earlier ruling be admitted?
With regard to this issue, the appellant in this case has contested the High Court of Delhi's prior ruling on this matter 2017 in this case. According to the case's facts, a truck accident occurred in 2010 when the vehicle the appellant's parents were travelling in collided with it close to Punjab. It was tragic that they died from their wounds, though. Following that, a Punjab FIR was lodged under Sections 249, 304A, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the National Insurance Company Ltd. insured their car. So, according to the petition that the appellant had presented before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, compensation should be paid for the death of their parents in accordance with Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The panel then determined that the compensation should be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 41,55,235. Her annual income, which was roughly Rs. 2,55,349, was decoded using an income tax report.
The court also cited the decision in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation, where around 1/3 of her income was taken off to cover living and personal expenses, and roughly 50% of the addition was made for those who were dependent on the deceased. And it was estimated that the non-monetary compensation would be about Rs. 3,25,000. The NIC was held accountable for paying Rs. 41,55,235 plus interest at a rate of 9% per year because they were the insurer.
The court cited the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi to rule that a 40% increase in income shall be included in the deceased's income even if they were self-employed and under the age of 40. According to the Hugh Court of Delhi's ruling, the remaining prerequisites can remain the same while adding an additional 40% to the deceased's income because the current situation satisfies these criteria. The court determined that the loss of dependent will be Rs. 35,74,890 after making all the necessary computations. It was ultimately determined to give the appellant Rs. 38,24,890 in compensation, plus 9 per cent interest.
The Court categorically stated that,
"In the present case, the deceased was self employed and was 37 years old, therefore, warranting the addition of 40% towards future prospects. Moreover, Pranay Sethi (supra), affirming the ratio in Sarla Verma (supra), held that the deduction towards personal and living expenses for a person such as the deceased who was married with two dependents, to be one third (1/3rd). Since the High Court in the impugned judgment deducted 50% of the same merits interference by this Court.”