>.:;,'W-'l~if''-J'';^~^ ^- F. ^Q-44^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc.ADpeal (0 No. 849 of 2010 Appellants Rupchandra Pandey, aged about 50 years, so of Dalganjan Pandey, residence of Champa By pass Road, Janjgir (dead). Respondents Smt. Sarojani Devi Pandey, aged about 45 years, wife of Rupchandra Pandey, residence of Champa By pass Road, Janjgir Neelkamal Cassette Bandar, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Uma Shankar Shukla, son of GP Shukla, residence of Vardhman Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Near Jhankar Talkies Omkardas Manikpuri, son of Laindas, Manikpuri, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office near Jhankiar Talkies, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Om P Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P.Dutta.counsel for respondent No.3. lr M.A.C.No.849 of201t) A) ORDER >th (18"'November,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Gajendra Pandey are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.10.2009, passed in Claim Case No.31/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Gajendra Pandey by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accidenton 01.07.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,09,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants' son Gajendra Pandey died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.07.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tanker bearing registration No.CG-17 H/1106; as the above offending vehicle Tanker on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not ""5-S;. y & ' Sh 1 a^ 1 I.A.C.No.849 of 2010 ^ ^-^.J establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.20,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,00,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,09,5007- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Gajendra Pandey in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,09,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Om P Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.20,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lowermultiplierof 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,09,500/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the MAC.No. 849 of 2010 insurer of the offending vehicle Tanker on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,09,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Couri:s / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,09,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Gajendra Pandey used to earn Rs.60,000/- per annum from tuition, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.60,000/- per annum. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Triburial at Rs.20,000/- per annum in the year 2008 is certainly on the lower side and requires re-consideration. 12) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased, ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe MotorVehicles Act. ^ :sm 5 I.A.C.No.849 of2010 13) Section 163 - A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows: "[163 A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation - For the purposes of this sub- section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under Sub - Section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 14) The above quoted Sub - Section (3) of Section 163 - A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. l.A.C.No.849 of 2010 ^ -1 15) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub - Section (3) of Section 163 - A of the Act, the Courts / Tribunal can take judicial notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 16) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimants' son deceased Gajendra Pandey lost his life took place in the year 2008. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year2008 are taken into consideration, the notiohal income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2008. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 17) Considering that deceased Gajendra Pandey on the date of the accident was unmarried and the claimants are his parents, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in view of the dicta of the Apex Coyrt in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. The claimants' dependency, .^-' I.A.C.No.849 of201Q ^ therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 18) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8-SCC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 19) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Gajendra Pandey in the motor accident. 20) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for wttich the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 21) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest 8 M.A.C.No.849 of 2010 on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.80,500/- at Rs.9,500/-. 22) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,09,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.9,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.80,500/-. 23) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) (Rs.80,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.80,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 24) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge subbu