(Clalmant) -< ^ iLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. 'BS Isc. Appeal 10 No. 786 of 2007 Smt. Santoshi Bai, aged about 22 years, Wife of Late Shri Panchram, Caste Satnami, Resident of Village Ameri, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Non-Claimants 4. 5. 6. La! Saheb Yadav, Son of Shri Bahadur Yadav, aged about 32 years, Occupation Driver, Resident of Bijaii Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Suraj Bhan Agrawal, Son of Not known, Resident of 74, Maruti Bihar, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Bhilai, Through: Branch Manager, The New tndia Insurance Company Limited, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Nand Son of Shri Jugaruram, CasSe Satnami, aged about 60 years; Smt. Kanchan Bai Wife of Shri Nanduram, aged about 58 years; Respondent No. 4 and 5 are resident of Village flardi, Police Station and Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Ku. Sulochana, D/o Nanduram, Caste Satnami, Resident of Village Hardi, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Biiaspur Appea! yndw Sectjon 173 <2) otthe Motor Vehlcles Act, 1988 Present: Shri PKTulsiyan, learned counse! forthe appeilant. None for respondents No.1 & 2 though served. Shri P Dutta, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Shri AC Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No.4, 5 & 6. ?th The follov/ing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Smt Santoshi Bai, is seekina enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (Tor short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 09.03.2007, passed in Claim Case No.99/2006. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 19,95,0007- ciaimed by the appeilant/ claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Panchram by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 14.03.2006, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.3,15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal apportioned the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- by awarding Rs.82,500/- each to respondent No.4 Nand, and respondent No.5 Smt Kanchan Bai, parents deceased Panchram and the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to appellant Smt Santoshi Bai, widow ofthe deceased. 3. Shri PK Tulsiyan, learned counsel for the appeilant submitted that the Tribunal has erred In assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- only. 4. Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 New Ihdia Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Shri AC Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No.4, 5 & 6 also supported the submissions of the appeiiant's counse! for enhancement of compensation in the case. 6. As the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle tanker have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Panchram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the driver of the offending vehicle tanker was responsible for the accident; and the insurer of the offending vehicle tanker was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality. That apart; these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 7. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Panchram used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month, but, the evidence ied in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We; therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. l'f^ 8. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed bv the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum is certainiy on the !ower side and requires reconsideration. 9. The Tribunal whiie discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis ofthe notiona! income prescribed in the Second Schedu!e under Section 163-A of the Act. 10. Notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Panchram lost his life took place in the year 2006. 11. Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 readsas follows : provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other iaw for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shali 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 leaal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. ,,- Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-sectlon, "permanent disability" shali 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- sectionH), 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 yehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Officiai 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) of Section 163-A of the Act, the Courts/ Tribunal can take judicial notice of increase in the prices of essentia! commodities and the cost of llving during 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 accident in which deceased Panchram lost his life took place in the year 2006. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of iiving between the years 1994 and 2006 is taken into consideration, the notiona! income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 wouid certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to recompiite the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 15. By deducting 1/3rf of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the parents of the deceased also have been held to be dependant on his income by the Tribunal, the claimants' dependencv is assessed at Rs.24,000/- oer annum. /? j ISB»*'-^ 16. Considering that deceased Panchram was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and his widow Smt. Santoshi Bai was shown to be 22 years of age in the c!aim petition, we are ofthe opinion that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Othrs, reported in (2009) 6 SCC -121. 17. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multlplier of 16 the compensation works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receiye a total sum of Rs.3,99,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Panchram in the motor accident. 18. Learned counsei for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 19. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Panchram tost his life took piace iri the year 2006; the claim petition was filed by the ciaimants in the year 2006; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2007; the present appeal was filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2007; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considerir^_a[!Jthe_re!evant factors inc!uding the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.84,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeilanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensatlon of Rs.84,000/-. 21. Respondent No.3 New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.84,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.84,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 22. The entire enhanced amount of Rs.84,000/- and the quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- (total Rs.90,000/-) shall be payabie to appellant Smt. Santoshi Bai, widow of deceased Panchram and his parents shali not be entitled to receive any amount from this sum of Rs.90,000/-. 23. No order as to costs. —- - - . -__ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge subbu