-A.p. i': HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Claimants Misc.Appeal No.793 of 2006 1 Upnarayan Gurwani, age 48 years, S/o late Kushalram Gurwani (Father of deceased) 2 Smt Durgabai Gurwani, age 45 yeare, W/o Upnarayan Gura/ani (Mrtther of deceased) Resoondents Original Non-applicants VERSUS Bhushan Prasad Sahu, S/o Shri Radheshyam Sahu, R/o Rampur Ward, Dhamtari, Tah & Distt Dftamtari (Owner of Maruti Van No. CG-05-90)5) Unlted India Insurance Co Ltd., Divisional OfRce, 1st Floor, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (CG) 4Q2001 (Insurer of Manrti Van No.CG-05-9905 Miscellaneous Appeal under SecUon 173 of Motor Vehlcles Act Present : Shri Gautam Bhaduri and Shri SS Rejput, counsel for the appellante. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. QRDER (08th April, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. s'ssa .!>'' .,si-'?ifc. y f^xa. fif"! ^^ ,...-^^ L. ^ This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Trjbunat') vide award dated 17.07.2005, passed in Clalm Case No.140/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.24,50,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of dweased Kailash Kumar, by filing a claim petltion under Sectlon 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.01.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as compensation to the ctaimants along with interest @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award. 3) The Tribunat on a ctose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimants' son l^ilash Kumar died on aecount of the injuriessustained by him in the motor accident on 08.01.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Van bearing registration No.CG-05- 9905 (old number OR-05^1-3436); as the above offending vehicle Maruti Van on the date ofthe accident was insured with the United 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. -'x^ ff '•'•• ~1^ ^^."si 4) As the respondents have not flled any appearf against the award, the above flndings recorded by the TrMsunaf have now attained finallty. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased art Rs.15,000/- per annum on the on the basis of the notiTOiat income prescribed in the Second Schedule under S«d:ion 163^ of the Motor Vehicle Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,(X)Q/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' deperatency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiptying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- wlth the rmittiptler of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,^),000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,35,0007- as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of their son Kailash Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1.35.000/- @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation wUhin 30 days of the passing of the award. 6) Shri Gautam Bhaduri and Shri SS Rajput, leamed counsel for theappeltants 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 armum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- only. 7) Shri Dasarath Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.2, the United Indla Insurance Gompany Llmited, ireurer of the offending vehicle Maruti Van, on the other hand supported ttie "iA.\ award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- 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 l^itash Kumar used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as Courier and Agent of Pulse Green Company, no cogent and reliable evidence vias led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupations of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.10,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the apprtfach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9) Nevertheless, the income of the deceas«lassessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 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 lawfor the time being in foroe or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized 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 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 ctaim for compen^ition under Sub - Section (1), the claimant shall not be requlred 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 concemed or of any other person. (3) The Central Govemment may, keeping in vlew the cost of living by notirication in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 11) The above quoted Sub - Section (3) of Section 1^— A of the Act mandated the Central Govemment to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view thecost of living. 12) 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 / Tribunat can take judlcial notice of increase In the prices of essential commodities and the cost of tiving during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 13) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accklent wherein claimants' son Kailash Kumar lost his life took place in ^R^!B^^*»^'^S.<" 8 the year 2003. If the tncrease in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and 2003 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Swond Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.SO.OX)/- per annum. 14) As deceased Kailash Kumar was unmarried dn the date of the accident, 50% of Rs.30,000/- is required to be deductal towards his pereonal expenses in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the Case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 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 Munfcipal Corporatien of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases wrfiere the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceedlO. 16) By multiplylng the annual dependency of Rs. 1 5,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,0(Xy-. The ctaimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towarcte funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,60,00(V- ss imr~:i—~ af ^*i- '•s"-.'. compensatlon for the death of their son tteiilash Kumar in the motor accident. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeltants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,35,0007- awarded by the Tribunat is enhanced to Rs.1,60,0007- wtth further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensatlonof Rs.25,000/-. 18) Respondent No.2 the United India Insurance Company Limited is grarrted three months' time for depositing thetotal sum of Rs.28,003/- (Rs.25,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensatlon + Rs.3,000/- towards quantifted amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.25,0)0/-) before the concemlng Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar padma