t'^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAWI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. c- Misc. Appeal (C) No. 548 of2010. /r-"»" Appellants Claimants Kanhaiya aged 52 years son of Surajmani Smt. Ratna agead 48 years'wife of Kanhaiya Both by caste Kharra resident of village Sakti in front of Masjid, Kharra para, ward No.7, Tahsil and Police Staion Sakti, district Janjgir Champa C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants (Driver) (Owner of vehicle) Ishwar Prasad aged 21 years son of Sahetar Ram by caste Yadav resident of village Lahanga Tahsil Sakti Police Station Baradwar, district Janjgir Champa C.G. Ishwar Das Vaishnav aged 39 years son of Dwarika Das Vaishnav resident of village Barawar W. No.7, near Bus Stand Tahsil Sakti police station Baradwar district Janjgir- Champa C.G. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Korba Tahsil &'district Korba C.G. Memo ofappeal under Section 173 of MotorVehicle Act Present: Shri P.K. Patel, counsel for the appellants. Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, counsel for respondents No.1 and2, Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for respondent No.3. (^ AC.No. 548 of 2010 ORDER >th l(i. (09'nAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortynate parents of deceased Ku. Rani Kharra, aged about 16 years, are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No.32/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,84,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ku.Rani Kharra, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 01.09.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 the claimants' daughter Ku. Rani Kharra died oa: account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 01.09.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration Nos. M.H.-31-5135; as tbe above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company 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. MAC.No. 548 of 2010 '..1 /' 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 1/3rt 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 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.12,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their daughter Ku. Rani Kharra in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6)' Shri P.K. Patel, 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; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- only. 7) Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation MAC.No. 548 of 2010 - ^ of Rs.1,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that their daughter Ku. Rani Kharra, who was a student of 10 standard, used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month from tuition, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. Even otherwise, it is unbelievable that deceased Ku. Rani Kharra, aged about 16 years only and who was a student of 10 standard could have earned Rs.6,000/- per month from tuition in a small village Kharra Para in the district of Janjgir Champa. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income, in the year 2008 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : I ^ M.A.C. No. 548 of 2010 "[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 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 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." ^ 12) 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. 13) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) ofSection 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 yy^ I \iL _.,^—1., % 1 l'sls1Si&% g t VBS'y'J] v ^ey1 M.A.C.No. 548 of 2010 the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 14) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimants' daughter Ku. Rani Kharra lost her life took place in the year 2008. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2008 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would come to atleast Rs.36,000/- in the year 2008. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 15) Considering that deceased Ku, Rani Kharra on the date of the accident, was unmarried and the claimants are parents of the deceased, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her 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) arid 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. 16) As the claimants are parents of the deceased and claimant No.1 Kanhaiya, father of deceased Ku. Rani Kharra was aged about 52 years and must be having his own independent income, MAC.No. 548 of 2010 in our considered opinion, the multiplier 10 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the 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 parentsofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 17) 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 loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their daughter Ku. Rani Kharra in the motor accident. 18) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.18,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.18,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.18,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest MAC.No. 548 of 2010 on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.18,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chardrakar Judee subbu