HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Cs HON'BLE SHRI RAJi HON'BLE SHRi SUNIL lisc. Appeal No. 909 of 2003 1. Pradeep Deshmukh, aged about 51 years, S/o Chandrashekhar Deshmukh. 2. Smt. Deepti Deshmukh; aged about 48 years, W/o Pradeep Deshmukh, both resident of Risaipara Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtarf'(C.G.) Versus Krishna Singh, aged about 26 years, s/o Sawantram R/o Viliage Jagtara, Tahsil Balod, district Durg (C.G.) (Driver of the vehicle No. M.P. 26- B/2237) 2. Anand Roadways Ganj Line Rajnandgaon, Parlner Haneef Solanki, S/o Najaruddin Solanki, R/o Ganj Line Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The New India Insurance Co, Ltd., Branch Office Rajnandgaon, kamthi (Company) Line Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) MiSceManepus appeal under Section 173 of the t f. Shri Kishore Bhaduri and Shri Pawan Kesharwani, iearned counsel for the appe!!anto. None for respQpdents No. 1 & 2. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. - >m TSlVK'\i.: »]sfl N NSSlE'' 'ipigiSi1 The foilowing order of the Court was passed by tajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Saurabh Deshmukh are the appellants before us in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for enhancement of the compensaition awarded by the Additional IVIotor Accidents ClaimS Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.04.2003, passed in claim caseNo.11/2002. V 2) As against the compensation of Rs.21,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehfcles Act, for the death of their son Saurabh Deshmukh in the motor accident on 17.01.2002, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actua! payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the ciaJmants' son Saurabh Deshmukh died on account of the injurses sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.01.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicte Minibus bearing registration No. M.P.26-B/2237; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured mth Ihe New India Insurance Corttpany Limited and the Insurance Company oould not establish gny breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liabte^o pay cpmpensation tothe claimants. '>, -dlsMffiilK ^lts;^^'^^ 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained flnality. >) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.500/- per month a"d Rs.6,000/- per annum. By deductlng 1/3''d of Rs.6,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at.Rs.4,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.4,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.40,000/-. The minimum amount of compensation under no fault liability was Ss.50,000/-, the Tribunai, therefore, assessed the compensation payabte at Rs.50,000/- and by awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, a total sum of Rs.60,000/- wasawarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Saurabh Deshmukh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Kishore Bhaduri and Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.500/- per month and Rs.6,000/- per annum only; in sefecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in avs^rding low compensation of Rs.60,000/- only. / tj /.' (^) f'liiSt^ ^.':<!R^t'?§§''^ 7) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, ieamed counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the deceased was a student and was not having any income of his own, the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) !n a motor accident claim case, what is important is that; the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pteaded that their son deceased Saurabh Deshmukh while studying in B.A. Part-1, used to earn Rs.200/- per day from his shop, the evidence led in that behatf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find anv fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.500/- per month and - Rs.6,000/- per annum is certainly o&the lowerside and requires reconsideration. ^-/J .<<' 12) The Tribunal while discarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis ofthe notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 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 compfensation on structured formula basis.^1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act pr in any other law for the time being in force or instrumeftt having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shatl 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" shatl have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) tn any claim for compensation under sub- section(1); the ctaimant 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 wrphgful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehictes 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 Scheduie from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 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/ Tribunat can take judicial notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and thecost of living during the period between the introduction of the Seconcl Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 16) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident whereln the claimants' son Saurabh Des'nmukh lost his life took place in the year 2002. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodtties and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2002 are taken into consideration, the notionat income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainiy come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 17) As deceased Saurabh Deshmukh was unmarried on the date of the accident, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.30,000/- towards his personal exbenses in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahanned and others Versus^Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court .Cases 225. The ciaimants" dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per annum. ^ •'i<.'-::'r:§S.:;s6:3i^3^t^-- 18) The multiptier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Mumcipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyerand another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the muttipiier should never exceed 10. 19) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multipiier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receivea total sum of Rs.1 ,60,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Saurabh Deshmukh in the motor accident. 20) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatlon of Rs.1,00,000/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced tp Rs.1,60,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.11,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 22) Respondent No.3 The New -tndia insurance Company Limlted issgranted three months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.1,11,000/- JRs.1,00,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation +Rs.11,000/- towards quantifled amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs Sd/- Chief Jusdce SdA Kusiar Sinha Judge subbu 1