••'•^ -±T3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. ApDellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal No. 07 of 2006 1 Nirbhay Thakur s/o Firtoo Thakur, agedabout 55 years. 2 Dulorin Bai, w/o Nirbhay Thakur, aged about 50 years. 3 Khem Lal s/o Nirbhay Thakur, aged about 25 years. All r/o village Barbaspur, Police Station Gotapara; Tahsil Khairagarh, district Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS 1 Preetam Sonvani, s/o Daya Ram Sonvani, aged about 41 years; r/o Raipur near Sai Mandir, Purani Basti, Raipur C.G. (Driver) 2 Anil Kumar Deevan, s/o Ajay Kumar Deevan, aged about 40 years; R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur C.G. (Owner) 3 The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Rajnandgaon C.G. (Insurer) Memo of ap^eal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri R.N. Jha, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Seema Dixit, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (06InJuly,2011) "e; -,,./^' y The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.11.2005, passed in Claim Case No.44/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23,81,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and brother of deceased Govardhan .@ Sameer Thakur, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death m the motor accident on 23.05.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,27,000/- 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 of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Govardhan @ Sameer Thakur died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.05.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration NO.C.G.-07/C-1996; as the above offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Cdhipany Limited 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, 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 Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe 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 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,10,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.17,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,27,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Govardhan @ Sameer Thakur in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amountof compensation of Rs.1,27,0007- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri R.N. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,27,0007- only. 7) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Ms. Seema Dixit, learned counsel for respondentNo.2 Anil Kumar Deevan, owner of the offending vehicle Dumper also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Govardhan @ Sameer Thakur used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as operator Poklin Machine of Ajay Mining Corporation, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.4,000/- per month. For the reasons best known to the claimants, neither the Proprietor of the above company nor any other employee was examined before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation -pf the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.4,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the daimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. @> 12) Neveri:heless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) 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 jn 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(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 6r 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." 14) 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_ •>S^:;^1—"-^,^ ,^ 15) As the Central Government has failed 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 of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 16) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Govardhan @ Sameer Thakur lost his life took place in the year 2004. If the increase in the, prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between theyear 1994 and the year 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 recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 17) Considering that deceased Govardhan @ Sameer Thakur on the date of the accident was unmarried, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.36,000/- 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. 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. 18) Considering that the claimants are parents and brother of the deceased, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Couri: 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 ofthe deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10. 19) 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 toreceive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Govardhan @ Sameer Thakur in the motor accident. 20) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest pf_ Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/-. 22) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of r^ Rs.70,000/- (Rs.63,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Jusuce Sd/- f.K. Agrawal Judge -subb':