^".o M j5'.6> s" ^ 5-U. :3. in' ss's,.. §i :?€1 :3 ~~t if^L, ^? £a> o' S a. Q E) b.S" -4 ^ 6 M (t) JE>. o ,,~A> 1<^ 'o- ^ a; § o S m & • 0 g o tll g m ;.'; w > w'm u ='' o: :5-«1,.., =i. .3- SW"g; "'"=!• B>3 ::3 Q- 83;!°o o CTS» Er ®^ u °1 ~w w.§ °' _, =1- £ &lw ::?• -j' '") ^v^ ai' ,K :3" .» o' !.„,... t-4- ca •• gi CL l/- a«3 o) F-T r'"~ ''•'':<" ^•"^' '"'•;. ff < <- g:ro (<0 O) a 0!- *;:< 0-, 5?' a> ;:t 3. 1 B) sa, 5i" "'*' ^" < ».s\ n -5 1""1' 'sf "O r"' fl)_ (B a" 0 -S s,, .A. "^ flj ^ •3'1 "'r'i. ^,. ^' fl) -O §^ r •i?1o t^ff,^r 1-t- o h<: (B B) 0> S.U (d "--^ c)- o a) :J! ^ a.) :!i .r' a. •]>w- (C,l B) <i> .-I ClL ^s" £i) '^' cr o C) „ £;: ^ ^" 'o 05 Q. is-i c. y-i p2 oo 7;, c.n (B b" (B =?~ a W M ^ w ^ O s> »» •'i Z5o- "^ ,3> o> ffil y fl) B) ""< o & 0~ ^ €'" O S .M c; T? ".? .1 =^g O =i =r ni §3!! 5) d g' il. ='.i -^ ^>t?  's u. oSS. M fO S B? Bi3 & •-T Ut ^ :T ':.. :;a. a>?r > (Ci fl) £IL o B) yf\ "•-< o o r~ B. (1) (C M' <?; B> W. ^ s^, 3 n>-l Bi. 3 s;£ ^*" ::>- B) oo' =r =r ci- a '"^ "-1! >p |5 °• r- o£l C& <B &SEW •S o~;_ M < Es) yi m- >; •< ;T Sl S: w fl> 3 3 % T Ssii y ^s a> o) ^" °>. 3'1i! '' a.. > oi 1.1 ^sl t^b»1 o' 3il II ¥5 i o o I Z Z ! z "c: ! aSO ! o 1> •til ^ •\k 3. The Orient; l^'^^U^^^^ r\c3wi isiriGi ^ n'as iri3r;A urana uiIUWK fL^-!.^^^^^ iVi^U^Si id yui'Qing, Kaipur, uistnc /rfr^\ \'t^f\^i iwisceiif i'j o'l irse mo I'Ui^.a B'i^aS' ynn ynivendu i-'andva. counsei tor tiie apDeiiants. None ror rsspondents No.1 S 2 though served. snri Sudiisr AarawaS anc! snri' P Dutta. counsei for /^- f$8DQiiO©HIIMO.t5. ^^ga:n ^^.t^y.sa's.v-^ -"gr^rs^ ? SW 'S.'^rS^S VS.ltS -s r, Ss'W S'5^;? foilowing order of !he Court was pass bv C.J, This is claimants' for enhancement of th< compensation awarded &v the Second Additiona! Motor Accldent C!aims Tribunal, IVIahasamund (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award 16.06.2005 passed in Ciaim Case No.18/2005. 2) The daimants, unfortunate widow, minor chiidren and parents of Vishwanath Chandrakar fiied claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act cialmina comDensation of Rs.15.00,000/-. <?-'"'!^ 'L''?^i£ ^''iiS.'S'E'*^ f~S? .T^ i.1 iS5 US?6il E U[ U Vishwarsath Chandrakar irr the motor accldent In the niaht or 30.10.2004, when he dashed by the offenciing vehicie tanker beaririQ reglstration No.CG-04/ZC 2641 resutting in hls snstantaneous ceath on the spdt itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Vishwanath Chandrakar was aaed about '<f^. ^?Ss •''?:?' \-f^ 's S£li :rfri^3^ri ^d ^uC E ^ £^^ i i s and to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as Mason, in to his income of Rs.25.000/- per annum from aariculture. r 3) The ownsr, driver and Insurer of the offending vehicle tankar contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensatlon to the ciaimants. The insurer further pieaded that the driver of the tanker not ho!di"a a vai'd driving license and the tanker was beiita pHed in fcreach of the policy conditions. 4i The claimants examined AW/1 Laxmi @ Meena Bai and AW/2 Kishan Chandrakar in suppQrt of thelr claim, where3s. 'iris owner. driver and insurer of the offencinQ vehicie tanker did not examini 5} iny witness in rebuttai. Tribunal on a close scrutlnv of the evidence !ed betore !t held that Vishwanath Chandrakar died on account of the iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30.10.2004; the •accident occurred due to rash and neaiiaent driving of the driver of the offendina vehicle tanker: as the offendina vehicie tanker on the of the accident was insured with the Oriental insursnce ComDanv Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pav compensation to the claimants. 6) The Tribuna! assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- oer month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. Bv deducting l/3!a -nf Rs.24,000/- tovysrds .th© psrsQnst sxpsnsss Qf ths deceased. the claimants' deDendencv was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. Bv muitiplvina the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the muitipiier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,72,000/-. Bv awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other permissible heads. the Tribuna! awarded a totai sum of Rs.2.81.500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of /ya%,"\ £ ft-E?^ 1 '"'ss'ss*. a Vishwanath ChandraKar in the motor accident. The Tribuna! further directed payment of interest © 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,81,500!- from the date of fiiina of the clalm petition tiil the date. of actuas payment. 7). Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has errecf in assessina the income of the deceasd at Rs.2,000/- per month on!y and in awardina. iow compensation of Rs.2,81,50Q/- oniy: 8) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, iearned counsel for respondent No.3 The Orientai insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- awarded by the Tribunat is just and Droper comDensation in the facts and circumstances of the Dresent 9) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findinas recorded bv the Tribuna' that deceased Vishwanath Chandrakar died on account of the injuries sustained bv him in the motor accident 30.10.2004; the accident occurred due te rash and negliaent driving of the driver of the ofTending vehicii tanker; and the insurer of the offendlna vehicle tanker was iiab!e to pay comDensation to the ciaimants have now attained finalitv. 10) in a motor accident c!aim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just fflllU Ul r compensatlon In the facts ancS circumstances of the 1-! r^?E%p if ^hnuld npimp.r hp ?B m^sn^r ^mnisnt nt rtrimn?s-n^??Tinn nni ^i'CliBS;. I i. i3i i U i^! i^.i U trl lil 1'iu/i 'iv^ Ci. 1 i i SSgt-iS; 'Ce-s i i'—fWii w?l ^/'••'! U;i»i!h;3 i'^Gii.l^—'ii i 3i/: ••.n'y's iCii tA.iSi. :•":."?%». :f-'^ \ f ^S^. 'i ». "r j .^y 11) Now, we shail examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the facts and clrcumstar.ces oft'ne present case. 1 -7\ 12) Deceased V'lshwanath Chandrakar was about 30 years. The ciaimants pleaded that deceased Vishwanath Chandrakar used to earn Rs.5,OOQ/- oer month as Mason. True, thc evidence ied bv the claimants about the income of thi was not of clinchina nature. We, therefore. do not Tinci any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence ai3out the income of the deceased." 13) Nevertheiess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribuna! at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum i; certainiy on the iower sicie and requlres reconsitieration. 1As The Tribunai while discardina the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased, ought to have the income of the cieceased on trte basis of notional incoine prescribed in the Second Schecuie under Section 1 63-A of the IVlotor Vehicies Act. 15) Section 163 - A of the Act where-under the Second Scheduie was introduced in the vear 1994 reads as follows : s-al fnyi •iicai sji i:?i fi - (1) Notwithstandlna anythlng contained in this Act or in anv other law for the time beina in force or instrument having the Torce of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shal! be liable to pay in the of death or permanent disablement ciue to accident arising out of the use o? motor vehicie, compensatiQQ- ''tesT R" "'1'-:^.*;/-?%, ^ i'^-;]'*-^- Second Scheduie, to the legai heirs or the victim, as the case mav &e. Expianation - For the purposes of thts sub- section, "permanent disability" shail have th< same meanina and extent as in the Workmen'; Compensatlon Act, 1S23 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under Sub Section (1), the claimantshall not be required to piead or establish that the death or permanent disabiement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicie or vehicles concerned dr of any other (3) The Centra! Govemment may, keeping in view the cost of living bv notification in the OfTicial Gazette, from tlme to time amend the Second Schedule." 16) The above quoted Sub - Section (3) of Section 163 - A of the Act mandated the Centrai Government to amend the Secon( Schedu'e from time to time keepina in view the cost of iivina. 17) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Sc'nedule as provided In Sub - Secticn (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 iving durlng the period between the introduction of the Sacond Schedule in the year 1994 and the of accident in the aiven case. 18) Now, revertina to the present case, the accident wherein Visliwanath Chandrakar lost his life took olace in the •S^SSfS S, B ^ s ts^^^ .-^ year 2004. If the increase in the prices of essentia! commodities and the cost of tiving during the period betvi/een 1 994 and 2004 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15.000/- orescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the vear 'e. therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 19^ 3v dsductlno the usual 1/3 of ths incom^ of ths d6C88ssd towards his Dersonal exoenses. tne claimants' cteDenclencv is at Rs.24.000/- oer annum. 20) Considerina the aae of the deceased'. his wtdow, thsir children and oarents of the deceased. we are of the oDinion that muitlDlier of 15 would be aDDroDriate in the present case. 21) By multip'ying the annual dependency of Rs.24,OOQ/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation worte out to Rs.3,60,000/-. The claimants are further entitied to receive Rs.5000/- towards funeraS exoenses; Rs.5.000/- for loss of consortium to the widow and Rs.5.000/-for Soss o* estate. The Ciaimants.thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Vishwanath Chandrakar in the motor accident. 22) Learned counse! forthe parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possibie dispute between the parties about the period for which the ciaimants are entitied to receive interest on the enhanced amount of comDensation. the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of comDensation mav be quantified in this itself. K%-S, k •fc 'gSte^ Q^ 23) Considering all the relevant ractors including the delay in disposal of the ciaim petition and the Drese.n.t appeal, and the fact that the insurance ComDanv alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.93,500/- at Rs.11.500/-. 24) For the foregoina reasons, ihe filed bv the appeiiants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is aSIowed !n Dart. The compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- 'awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.3,75,000/- with further auanttfied amount of interest {ioi of Rs.11,500/- on the enhanced amount' of compensati ^c- Q'3. ^nn/- f'S.St.-SU.^WU/-. 25) Respondent No.3 The Oriental Insurance Company LimiSed is aranted three months' time for dsDositina the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.83,50Q/-towards enhanced amount compensation + Rs.11,500/- tovi'ards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of comDensation of Rs.93,500/-) before the concernina Claims Tribunal 26) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.L.Jhaiiwar Judge 'aami