Additions for Future Prospects: conflicting methods referred to a larger Bench; interim stay allowed subject to secured deposit.

Conflicting formulations on adding income for future prospects-specifically whether age based percentage methodology applies to self employed and fixed wage claimants-constitute a question of law requiring authoritative resolution; the Court referred that question to a larger Bench for determination. Separately, exercising discretionary power pending final decision, the Court granted interim stay relief to the insurer conditioned on preservation of contested funds by depositing a specified security sum before the tribunal and directing proportionate distribution in accordance with the tribunal's award. The Court did not decide substantive entitlement on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the question of addition to income for future prospects, as applied to self-employed or fixed-wage persons, gives rise to divergent precedents warranting reference to a larger Bench; (ii) Whether interim relief in the form of a stay should be granted to the insurer subject to deposit and distribution of a specified sum.

Issue (i): Whether the conflicting pronouncements in Santosh Devi, Rajesh and Reshma Kumari on the methodology and applicability of additions to income for future prospects require an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench.

Analysis: The Court reviewed the sequence of decisions: Sarla Verma laid down a standardised rule of thumb for additions; Santosh Devi interpreted that rule more broadly to include self-employed and fixed-wage persons; subsequent three-Judge Bench decisions in Rajesh and Reshma Kumari produced divergent formulations on whether and how age-based percentages apply to self-employed or fixed-wage persons. The divergence between decisions of Benches of equal strength was identified and the principle that such conflict should be resolved by a larger Bench was applied.

Conclusion: The matter raises an authoritative question on the proper method of adding future prospects and is referred to a larger Bench for decision. (Conclusion in favour of neither party on merits; procedural referral in favour of authoritative adjudication.)

Issue (ii): Whether interim relief by way of stay should be granted to the petitioner-insurer, and on what conditions.

Analysis: Considering the totality of circumstances and the pendency of challenge, the Court exercised its discretion to grant interim relief conditioned on a security/deposit to preserve the fund for distribution in accordance with the tribunal's award. The court directed the insurer to deposit a specified sum before the tribunal and ordered distribution in accordance with the award.

Conclusion: Interim stay relief is granted to the petitioner-insurer subject to deposit of Rs. 20,00,000 before the tribunal and proportionate distribution as per the tribunal's award. (Conclusion in favour of the appellant on interim relief.)

Final Conclusion: The Court has not adjudicated the substantive entitlement on merits but has (a) referred the legal question concerning addition for future prospects to a larger Bench for authoritative determination and (b) granted conditional interim relief to the insurer by directing a deposit of Rs. 20,00,000 to be distributed as per the tribunal's award.

Ratio Decidendi: Where conflicting decisions of Benches of equal strength exist on a rule of law governing compensation (here, addition to income for future prospects), the conflict should be resolved by referring the question to a larger Bench; meanwhile the Court may grant conditional interim relief preserving the contested funds for distribution in accordance with existing awards.

---