HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. AppelSants Ciaimants Misc. Appeal No. 640 of 2006 1 Vrindavan Pradhan, S/o Kesmo Pradhan, Caste : Kolta, aged about 43 years 2 Smt Vinodaxi Pradhan, W/o Vrindavan Pradhan, aged about 39 years Both residents of village Laxmipur, Post Kishunpur, PS Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG) Respondents VERSUS Ravi @ Ravindra Pradhan, S/o Bablu Prdha, aged 24 years, R/o VJII & Post and Police Station Kanjiya, Mayurganj, Orissa Manish Kumar Chaube, S/o Prakash Chaube, R/o PS and Post Varipada, Orissa The New India Insurance Company Limited, Nobis Aashram Road Behind Nehru Brije Ahmadabad Through Branch Manager, New india Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon (CG) Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Gautam Kshetrapal, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsei for respondent No.3. ,%. ^—''.^ \^sy ORDER (03rd May, 2011) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Devchand Pradhan are the appellants before us in this appea} for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.09.2005, passed in CIaim Case No.91/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.14,05,000/-, ciaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Devchand Pradhan by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.05.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that their son Devchand Pradhan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.05.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivjng of the driver of the offendjng vehicle truck bearing registration No.GJ-1 X-7627; as the above offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India tnsurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. ^.•s-^^^\ ^ ':%-.... '^-^ 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now 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 Vehicle Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplyjng the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son deceased Devchand Pradhan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shrl Gautam Kshetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multipjjer of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,40,000/~ only. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicte Truck, on the other hand supported the award and ^. contended that as deceased Devchand Pradhan was aged about 19 years only, the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son deceased Devchand Pradhan used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as conductor on the truck, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only. 9) The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. 10) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : "[163 A. 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 vehicie or the authorized insurer shall be Ijable 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 (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent g^^^ .^ ^SA^ disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or defauft 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 OfficEal Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 11) 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. 12) As the Central Government has fajled 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 ofthe Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 13) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein claimants' son deceased Devchand Pradhan lost his life took ptace in the year 2004. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1 994 and 2004 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 2004. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. :e^. s '^••s^^' „<- 14) Considering that deceased Devchand Pradhan was unmarried on the date of the accident, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 15) As the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the present case would be 10 in view ofthe 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 never exceed 10. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son deceased Devchand Pradhan in the motor accident. 17) The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 'v.... 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation js allowed in part. Thecompensation of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded bythe Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1 ,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.55,000/- (Rs.50,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge padma