A.F.f>\. 1 4w é-J‘ééam‘ h§§€§H CGURT OF CEH§TT§S$AEH AT BELQSPLER DNIS-éQM BENCH @gapa§§am§ Agap§imnt$ CQMM: HON’ELE SHRI RAJEEV GUE‘WA, C.J. & §=EGN’3LE $HR! RAN$NATH CH£N§RAKAR, in MA. NQ.’E3$§} 3f 2@&5 1 Smt Rameia Bai, Wd f0 Late Purushettam Lai Sahu. Age 23 Ku Chaya, Aged about 4 years Kundan aged about 3 menths No.2 8: 3 by Guardian ad {item her mather appeliant No.1 No.2 & 3 chi!dren of Laste Pumahoiiam La] Sahu Smt Janké Bod W/o Janakiai SahuAge 5O years 3 Janaklal Sahu Sfo Hirauram Sahu, Age 55 years AH Rfo Mana Basti, Raipur ‘Jerws Responoomg 1. Nitai Ahir, S/o Banmaéi Ahir, Age 26 Mon-mopEgoams years 2. Krisma Prasad Kundoo Slo Suboi Chandra Kundeo 1 & 2 r/o Ms Service Station, Talibandha, Raipur The New Endia msurance Co Ltd By Divisional Manager, Divisional Ofocel Ku‘tchery Chowk, Jaii Road, Raipur<CG) Qpyeai under gectism 1m of me Motor Vehicie Act. 13% Present: Shri Raja Sharma, couneei foy ihe appeiiante. LO Shri HB Agiawai, Senior Advocate with Shri SS Rajput, counsei on behaif of Shri Raj Awasthi, counsei for feeponéeni No3 3RQER ($52?“ Jaauziry, 2&w} The foliawing erder of the Court was passed by R&je‘ev Gama, QJ. The ap§e§lants are seeking enhancement of ihe compensaiion awarded by 8m Additionai Meter Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur {for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 30.08.2005,_passed in Claim case NO‘6/2004. 2. As againsé: thS ccmpensaiion of R5.85,00‘DGGI« claimed by ‘the apgeiianw ciaimams, unfortunaie widow, minor Childyen and params 9f decaasged Purushattam Lai Sahu, by filing a ciaim petition undef Section 166 9i iha Mcior Vehicies Act, fer hi3 death ” in ihe moier accident on 11.01 2004, the Tiibunai awardod a iotai sum of R31 ,$7,008/— a3 oompenoaiion aiong wiéh iniei’est (a; 4% oer annum from ihe deie of filing of the oiaim petition tii! the date of aotuai payment. 3. The Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence ted by the partEes heid that deceased Purushottam Lal Sahu died on account of the injuriee sustained by him in the motor accident on ‘ tt.Gt.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negitgent driving oi the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; and es the offending vehicie Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New india insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company waa iiabie to pay compensation to the cieimants. 4r The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Re.’i5,000/’- per annum on the basis of the notionai income w premribed in the Sesond Schedule under Section 163-A of the Mator Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.15,000/— towards the persona! expemes of the deceased, the claimants’ da§3endency was assessed at Rs.@0,0GO/—. By multipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.10,000/— with the multiplier sf 18, the eompeneaiion was worked eut to Rs.1,80,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Re.5.00{)/— for loss consortium to the Widow, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rel ,87,0DO/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Purushottem Lai Sehu in the motor aooident. The Tribunal further directed payment of intereet on the above amount of oompensation of Rs.1,87,000!- @ 4% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5. Shri Raja Sharma, iearned counsel for the appeilents submitted that the Tribune! has erred in not accepting the ciaimants’ 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 Rsi ,87,000/- only. 6. Shri HB. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel and Shri 8.8. ‘ Raiput, appearing on behalf of Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 — the New india insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the impugnedaaward and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income oi the deoeaeed as pleaded by them, the compensation of @ Rs.’i,87,GGG/— awarded by the Tribunal i$ just and promr campemsaiian in ihe facm and circumstances cf fhe p ?. re$eni case. As ‘ihe respondents have no: med any appea! against the award, the féndéngs recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Purushoitam Laf Sahu died on account 6f the injuries, sustained by him in the meter acciden‘: an 11.0?2004; the accicéem occurred due i0 rash and neglégent driving of the driver of th$ aifending vehicle Truck; and the insurer of ihe Truck was iiabie to pay 90m§en$aiion tc the ciaimants, have now attained finality. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this apneei. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunai‘ .V 8‘ True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Purushottam Lei Sahu used to earn Rs.8,000f— per month by running a Kirana Shop, but the evidence ied in that behalf was net of clinching nature. We therefore, do net find any fault in the approach of the Tribune! in discarding the ciaimanis’ evidence about the income of the deceased. 9. Nevertheless, the income ci the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.i5,000/— per annum is certainty on the iower side and requires reconsideration. 19. Section i63~A’ of the Act where—under the Second Sehedoie was introduced in the year 1994 reads as foiiows : “{163A. seeciei provisiens as to payment, of compensation on strdctured formula basis—(t) . Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any @ cth‘er Eaw for the time being in force or insirument having the force of !aw, the owner of the motor vehicie or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permenent dlsablement due to accident ariei‘ng 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’e Compensation Act, 1923(8 of1Q23)4 (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 dieabiement 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 eerson. {3) The Central Government may, keeping in View the cost of living by notiftcation in the Officiai Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.” ti. The above quoted Sdb- section (3) of Sectton 163~A of the Act mandated the Centrai Government to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. ’19 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 ofttving during the oeriod between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. As the Central Government has faiied in amending the / 1d. New reverting to the present case, the accident wherein deceased Purushottam La! Sahu Iost his life took place in the year 2004. if the increase in the prices of the eesentiai Gammodiiiee and the cost 0f iiving between the year 1994 end the year 2004 are taken into coneideration! the notionai inccme of Re.15,0Q0/e prescribed in the Second Scheduie in the year 1994 weuid certainiy came to Re.36,000;’- in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose to recempute the cempensation taking the income of the deceased at Re.36,000/- per annum. t4. By deducting the usual 1/3” of Rs.36,000/- towards the pereenai expenses Gt the deceased, the ciaimante’ dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000l~ per annum. 15. Considering the age of the deceased and hie widow and children, we are of the opinion that the mnitipiier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case. i6. By multipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.24,000/— with the muitipiier of t7, the compensation works out to Rs.4,08,000/—. The claimants are further entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,000/« towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/— for loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/— for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitied to receive a totai sum of Rs.4,23,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Purushottam Lai Sahu in the motor accident. t7. Learned counsel for theparties submitted that with a View to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the i l\ /r' §eréod far whmh the c§aémants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amsunt of interest en the enhanced amaunt of compensaticn may be quantified in this appeai iteeif. i 18. Considering aii the reievant factors inciuding the deiay in dispoeai of the ciaim petition and the present appeal and the fact that insurance Company aione is not to be blamed for the entire deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of intereet on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,36,000/— at RS.15,0GOI-. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeai tiled by the appetlants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation ie attowed in part. The compensation of Re.1,87,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,23,000!— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.15,000/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,36,000/-. 20. Respondent No.3 The New lndia insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the tote! sum of Rs.2,51,000!— (Rs.2,36,000f— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.15,{)00/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,36,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal it, ;~ i j. subbu 2t. No order as to costs. ix -sd/- ~ - Sd/- ; ) f ; LR.N.Chandr"akar Chief Justice§ L Judge