HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH ^ CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 993 of 2009 ,* Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-claimants 1. Tribhuwan Nirala, s/o Trilochan Nirala, aged about 50 years, 2. Smt. Mojan Nirala, w/o Tribhuwan Nirala, aged about 48 years, 3. Vinod Nirala, s/o Tribhuwan Nirala, aged about 15 years, 4. Ku. Puja Nirala, d/o Tribhuwan Nirala, aged about 11 years, 5. Rajat Nirala, s/o Tribhuwan Nirala, aged about 11 years, (appellant No. 3 to 5 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian father appeilant No.1 Tribhuwan Nirala) All R/o Village Gotiyardih, police station, Abhanpur, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS Tikam Singh Som, s/o Akbar Singh Som, r/o village Bhitarras Sihawa, district Dhamtari C.G. (Driver of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 17/H/2786) Sayad Attar Ali, s/o Sayad Sarfaraz Ali, aged about (not mentioned), r/o Ashok Park, Dharampura (wrongly mentioned as Dhamarpura), Jagdalpur, district Bastar C.G. (Registered owner of vehicle Truck bearihg registration No. C.G. 17/H/2786) ~'-L-:^^^'i" 3. The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shop No.412, 413 4th Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 17/H/2786) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.S. Rajput and Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (20th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents, brothers and sister of deceased Govind Nirala are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No.43/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, brothers and sister of deceased Govind Nirala, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 27.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per /' ':'^ ^m. K t^ 'w'-: ..5V ^ 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 the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.17/H/2786, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,0007- towards the personal expenses of the 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 16, the compensatibn was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,62,0007- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Govind Nirala in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of theclaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the V q^ claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,62,000/- only. 7) Shri S.S. Rajput and Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish any definite and regular income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- 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 Courts/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.1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Govind Nirala used to earn Rs.3,600/- per month as Painting Contractor, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.3,600/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. ^ 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2008 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introducedin the year 1994 reads as follows : "[163A. 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 authorised 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(l), 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." qjly \. 13) 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. 14) 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. 15) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the deceased Govind Nirala lost his life took place in the year 2008. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1 994 and the year 2008 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2008. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that deceased Govind Nirala on the date of the accident, was unmarried, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation m 'Vi l.f^.r$ :'^y ^ and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- perannum. 17) Considering that the claimants are parents, brothers and sister of the deceased, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case 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 neverexceed 10. 18) 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 deceased Govind Nirala in the motor accident. 19) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.28,000/-. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensationof Rs.1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.28,000/-. la ff y ^' a l^^ 21) Respondent No.3 the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.28,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.28,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 22) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu