...•3^& v-win, •i> /•si^ ,4. P.R 5- ^ • ^/D^t) b»ii»i<i»i Suti^.i'w'^^f i rv eupTA, c.j. & LM'Rl != JCMB! sT^iii i-?a-.i- tai-ir%.i MLsc ADDeal No.786of200: ClsifTtsnts 2 Rajo Bai, aged about 30 years Wd/o L3i$ £>UKfii3iTi Pyare Lal, aged about 1 4 years, S/o Late Sukhrsm 3 Shyama Bai, aged about 10 years, S/o Late Sukhram 4 Jeevan Lal, aged about 8 years, S/Q Late Sukhram ^ 5 Ku. Seema, aged about 5 years, S/o tLate Sukhram 6. Ku.Rima, aaed about 1 years, S/o Late Sukhram 7 Smt Nahari Bai, Aged about 70 years, Wd/o Late Itwari Atl are by caste Gond, R/o Vlllage Khudiya, PS & Tahsil Lormi, District Silaspur (CG) No.2 to 6 are minor, Through Natura! Guardian Mother Raso bai (Dnver) 'Ownert Ram, A.ged 25 years S/o Yogendra Lal Sahu, R/o Rambhata, PS Dabhara, Distt BilasDur (CG) Kumar, aged about 36 years S/o Yogendra La! Sahu R/o Juneja Bus Servlce, Bus Stand Bilaspur (CG) The Oriental Insurance Company Office Biiaspur (CG) Appeal under Section 173 of t VehIcjesAct. 181 T Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for the appellants. None forj-espondent No.1 thouyhse"i/ed.' Shri SK Mishra, counsei fbr resoondent No.3. i-wv--sf- (3rd Febriiar/,2010) The followin.a order of the Court was passed by f laieev Gupta, c.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded bv the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.07.2003 oassed in C-laim Case No.15/2002. 2) "he ciaimants, unfortunate widow, 'children and mother of deceased Sukhram ciaimed compensatlon <^f Rs.24,10,000/-, by filing a claim petition under Sect'ion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the mptor accident on 13.07.2001, when he was .dashed by the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.MP 26/B-5811 resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot iS-self. The claimants further pleaded that deceased used to earn Ss.100-150/- per day as carpenter. 3) The owner and driver of the offending vehicle bus did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunat. 4) The insurer of the bus contested the clalm and denied Its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the bus was being plied in breach of the policy conditions, and the driver of the bus was not holding a vaiid driving license. 5) The claimants examined AW/1 Rajo Bai and AW/2 Dukaiu in support of their claim, whereas: the insurer of the bus examined NAW/1 Anil Sao and NAW72 Suresh Kumar Dekade-in rebuttal. 6) The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Sukhram died on account of the injuries 3 -^alPi.. g 1S*"'~V S JJ SES<'" Jf sustained by him in.the motor accldent on 13.07.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle buS; as the offending vehlcle bus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Companv 1 imited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) The Tribunal instead of assessing the income of the decsased; the ciaimants' dependency; setecting the appropriate multiptier, awarded a lump sum of Rs.1,15,0^/- as compensation along with Rs.7,000/- for ioss of consortium 'to the widow and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,25.000/- was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants for the death of deceased Sukhram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of fillng of the claim petition tll! the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsei for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the compensation in the prescribed manner and in awarding lump sum compensatiQn of Rs.1,25,000/- only. 9) ' Shri SK Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The Oriental Insurance C<5mpany Limited, on the other hand supported the sward and contended that as the clalmants could not establish. the ij],come of the deceased pleaded by them, the compensatlon of Rs.1,25.000/- awarded by the Trlbunal is 'iust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. •"w ] ~s y^'\ 1 . 'yf^ •<^;.. ^•^fs'i contained in this Act or In any other law for the time bein.g in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pav in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arlslng out of the use of motor vehlcte, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the lega! heirs or the victim, as the case may be. ixpianation - For the purposes of.this sub- section, "permanent disabllity" shall have the same meanina and extent as in the Worktnen'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 estabfish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful sct or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other (3) The Centrai Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Scheduie." 14) The above quoted Sub - Section (3) of Sectlon 163 - A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second Scheduie from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 15) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provlded in Sub - Section (3) of Section 163 - A of the Act, ihe Courts / Tribunai can take judicial.,'notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of iivina durina the period between the inSroduction of the Second ""! 1 ^^^tUWtiWitSES^ftaiSBEB^RSkSauiiifyu.iSa.ib^^ -^ '^ 1! •^y 6 \J's' Schedule in She year 1 994 and the date of accident In the glven case. 16) The accldent in the present case took place in the year 2001. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of ilvina durlng the period between 1994 and 2001 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Scheduie in the year 1994 wouid certainly come to is.30,000/- In the year 2001 . We, therefore, assess the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. , \, 17) By deducting th.s usuat 1/3''° of Rs.30,000/- towards personai expenses of the deceased, the clalmants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 18) Considering the age of the deceased, hls widow and their children, we are of the opinion that muitiplier of 1 O would be appropriate in the present case. 19) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with She multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.2,00,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for ioss of consortium to the widow and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive,a total sum of Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation for the death ofdeceased Sukhram-in the motor accident. 20) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoidany possibie dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitied to recelve interest on th6 enhanced !i"? I -i^m.^4, )^^li^^>^WK>,-3^'iB»^!B>g^8<i^%.^'^^ lA^ T „ -•;'!a!>a!^. .;''.. '•'^'"^ ^. ,.:? ^ ^ ^ ^l.^^^!^. ^ 7 amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantifled in this appeal itself. 21) Considering ail the relevant factors 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 deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of mterest payab!e on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.90,000/- at Rs. 10.000/-. 22) For the foregoing reasons, the appeai filed by the claimants \, for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,15,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.90,000/-. 23) Respondent No.3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.90,000/-towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.90,000/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 24) No oRder as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.L. Jhaswar •e idma l,i;ll.;:j;;,ij:,,.(^-m).