,^: ,.^ ® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HQN'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,C.J,& HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (ClNo. 1265 of 2008 Appellants Claimants .-. -^ Milku Ram, s/o Shri Bandhna Ram, aged about 50 years, by caste Uraon occupation Agriculturist. Smt. Dhuniya Bai, w/o Shri Milku Rarti, aged about 48 years, occupation House Wife. Both r/o village Jajga Post Karabel P.S. and Tahsil Sitapur distt. Surguja C.G. VERSUS Branch Manager, United Insurance India, Insurance Company Ltd., Br^nch Office Brahma Road, Am.bikapurdistt. Surguja C.G. Shyam Bihari s/o Rajbalam Singh Rajpoot aged about 45 years, occupation Truck owner r/o Mohalla Gangapur (Behind Chhabda Bus) P.8., Post & Tahsil Distt. Surguja C.G. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 Non-apDlicants Defendants Present: Shri Sunil Tripathi, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ORDER ith (04tnJuly,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. K~-^. 1. y^ 1 ^»s;%^ i ^ ./c ^te^ \ ..<ayu'1 This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fjfth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Surguj'a (forshort 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.07.2008, passedin Claim Case No.49/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.60,30,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Nirmal Khesh, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20.04.20Q7, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,84,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny ofthe entire evidenceled before it heldthatclaimants' son Nirmal Khesh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.04.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing r^gistration No.C.G.15ZC/0125; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ljmited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, th^ above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now ^ttained finality. .^•C""^€ r' l:^gl?b» '^i^--"" ].; K,-3^ '••.ii?^.-^-!^^ 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.15,000/- 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 17, the compensation was worked out to ^ Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding furthersum of Rs.14,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,84,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Nirmal Khesh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim Ftetition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for the appeliants ^ submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- only though the claimants' son Nirmal Khesh was a brilliant student and had a bright future. 7) Shrl Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as claimants' son Nirmal Khesh was a student on the date of the accident and wasnot having any independent income of his own, the compensation of & Rs.1,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Deceased Nirmal Khesh on the date of the accident, according to the admission made by his father in his evidence before the Tribunal, was a student of B.A. Second year. He further admitted that deceased Nirmal Khesh on the date of the accidentwas not having any independent income of his own. The assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2007 on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act certainly requires reconsideration. 9) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in 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 purposesof this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). o (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." 10) 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 timekeeping in viewthe costof living. 11) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule asprovided in Sub-section (3) ofSection 163-A ofthe Act, the Courts/ Tribunal can take judicial notice of increase in the prices ofessential commodities and the cost ofliving during the period between the introduction of theSecond Schedule in the year 1994 and the date ofaccident in the given case. 12) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein claimants' son Nirmal Khesh lost his life took place in the year 2007. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2007 are takenjnto consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in theyear 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2007. We, therefore, propose to recomputethe compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- perannum. iJ-'A., :-...^\, ^.^^^^. -// •^^^^•" .^y ^.^-:' c- II 13) Considering thatdeceased Nirmal Khesh 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 Versus 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 SCC 121. 14) 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) Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and anof/ier,reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimantsare parents of the deceased, the multipliershould neverexceed 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/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for lossof estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,90,0007- as compensation for the death of their son Nirmal Khesh in the motor accident. 17) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.6,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,84,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with furtherquantified amount of interest of Rs.1,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.6,000/-. 19) Respondent No.1 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rs.6,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.1,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.6,000/-) befbre the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nlmml