TflBBI r^. \-'^ iE^E'^ijP'ig 1. Ram Charan Sahu, Age 50 years, S./o Shri Rungu, By Caste - Sahu Teli 2. Smt Durpati, Age 48 years, VV/o Ram charan Sahu, Both are R/o Village ia / Basana, Distl Mahasamund (CG) SPONDENTS 1. Desh Singh, Age 59 years. S/o Hira ingh Sikh, R/o 106 BT Road, Kolkotta 35, 3r° Floor, Hari Street, Kofkotta QA/B) (Driver of Truck No.WB 23/A/1 957) 2. Puran Singh, Age 45 years S/o Shri D Singh, R/o 134/1, MG Road, Distt Kolkotta (WB) (Owner of Truck No.VVB 23/A/1957) 3. United India insurance Company f t«-y.;4.^^ Bf^^^,u r^ff;^^ ^* 'sl'd Ct^-.»- Llifiiiea, Dieiiidi uiliUc ai J nuuf, Hari Street, Kotkotta (WB) Through Divisionai Office a{ Kachhari Chovt'k, Raipur (CG) (Insurance Cokpany of Truck No.VVE 23/A/1957) MiSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHiCLE ACT. 1988 ...Present: Shri JA Lohani, counsei for the appeiiants. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsei for respondent No.3. ^nd The following order of the C-ourt was passed by iieev Gtspta. C.J.: ...(•s-:-.. This is claimants' appeai for enhancement of the by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for s.hort, 'the Tribunai') vide avs/ara' dated 06.12.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No.158/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,20,000/- claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate parents of deceasedAnii Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor V/ehicles Act for his death in ihe motor accldent on 14.10.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation uong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciasm petition tllt the date of actual psyment. 3) Shri JA Lohani, learned counsel forthe appeiiants submitted that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month only, in deducting 50% of the income of the a'eceased towards his personai expenses; in selecting lower muitiplier of 10; snd in awarding iow compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-on!y. 4) , Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsei for respondent No.3/' United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants couid not esfabiish the Income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and >roper compensatlon in the facts and. circumstances of th( 5) As the respondents have not filed any appeai against the sward, the findlngs recorded. by the Tribuna! that deceased Anii Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.10.2004: the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehlcle Truck; an< as t'ne offendina vehicie Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India insurance Company Limlted, the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the daimants, now have attained finality. That apart, these findings sre not under chaiienae before us in this appeal. VVe, therefore, affirm the above findin.qs recorded bv the Tribunal. i) True the claimants pleaded that their son Anii Sahu used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Carpenter, the evidence ied in that behalf was not of clinching nature. VVe, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 7) Nevertheless, t'ne Tribunal v-.'hile discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased oua.ht to have assessed his income on the basis of the notiona! Income prescribed in the Second Scheduie. 8) Section 163 - A of the Act t,... Schedule was introduced in the year19S e-under the Si as foilows: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument havina the force of law, the owner of the motor vehlcle or the authorized insurer shail be iiable to pay in the case of death or permanent dlsablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the lega! heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation - For the purposes of this Sub- Section, "permanent disabiiity" shall have the same meanina and extent as in the VWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) !n any claim for compens^tion under Sub-Section (1), the claimant shaii not be required to pl.ead or estabiish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongfu! ict or nealect or defauSt of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of anv other (3) The Centra! Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Officiai Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Scheduie." 9) The above quoted Sub-Section (3) of Section 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. 'IQ)^ As the Centrat Government has faiied in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-Section (3) of Section 163-A ofthe Act, the Courts / Tribunat can take judicial noticeof increase in the prices of essentiai commodities and the cost of living during \..r' P>a^, "^:. ~is the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 11) Now reverting to the present csse, the accident in the present case wherein the claimants' son Anil Sahu lost his life took piace in the year 2004. !f the increase in the prices of th< essentia! commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 ana' 2004 are taken into consideration. the notionai income \.'s II- II! prescribed in the vear 1 994 vi?ou!d certainly come t( the vear 2004. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceasec at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 12) The deduction of 50% of the income of t'ne deceased by the Tribuna! cannot be found fault with as deceased Ani! Sahu was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage, his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantiaily. 5y deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/-, the ciaimants' dependency therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. 13) The multipiier of 10 selected by the Tribunal considering that the claimants are parents of the view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case s appropriate ;eased and in in (2003| 8 SCC 731, wherein it vi/as held that in those cases where the ctaimants are parents of the deceased, the multiDlier shouid never exceed 10. 14) By multiplying the annual depsndency of Rs.18,000/- the muStipiier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,1 ^ r o ^~""- 1 •Sss;* 'he claimanis are further entitled to receive Rs.5, funera! expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of esfate. The ciaimants. thus 1 'nfit! ed to receive a tofal sum Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Anil Sahu in t'ne motor accident. 15) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possibie dispute between the parties about the period for Vi/hich the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount oFinterest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appea! itselr. 16) Considering all the relevani factors including the deiay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeai and the fact thaf the Insurance Company alone is not to be biamea' ror the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. of Rs.68,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 17'i For the foreaoina reasons. the aooeal filed appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is a.Iiowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantifiec amount of interest or' Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68.000/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.68,000/- ton'ards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards the quantified amount of 'l 'IM-&. & 1 vt!-s-^ ?: 8.' ^ padma snterest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs,68,000/'-} before the concernina Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge