,.:>!':2"5!:'«^' '*:?'^' ta«* :l.'si^2?s?i' •;';''v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISUARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR.J. M.A. No.357 of 2003 APPELLANTS (Applicants) Ramadhin and others. RESPONDENTS (Non-applicants) Versus Ravi Kumar bthers. Girdharilal Sahu and ORDER :^:i:^*:^ [f:i9 '*i& Pronouncement of order : 22-07.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge -A ', ^•^••VS t» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. M.A.No. 357 of 2003 APPELLANTS LA&pJLcants) fft^ s ,liiti (®ffi' 1. Ramadhin, S/o Ratan Sahu, aged 51 years. 2. Smt. Devaki Bai, W/o Ramadhin Sahu, aged 48 years. 3. Halal Khor, S/o Ramadhin Sahu, aged 16 years, Minor through - father Ad- litem-Guardian. All are R/o village Pingla, P.0. Sahgaon, Tah. Daundi Lohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Ravi Kumar @ Girdharilal Sahu, S/o Dhan Singh Sahu, aged 23 years, R/o Block No. 87/B, street No.11, Dalli Rajhara Tounship, Tahsil - Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Driver. 2. Nirmala English Medium School, Dalli Rajhara, Through - PrincipOal, Nirmala English Medium School, Dalli Rajhara, Tah. Balod, (Owner), Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch, Branch Office - Kamathiline Rajnandgaon (C.G.) IVIISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 RESPONDENTS (Non-applicants) Appearance: Shri U.R. Koshley, counsel for the appellants. Shri Pravee.n Dhurandhar, counsel for respondent No. 1 None for respondent No.2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon ^Z-.07.2010) y .---:.. •- rfeB—l :': '•'lse''..iS'?!i 1-i, '~~~-i;.t 'fr l, c" T^ Not being satisfied by the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balod (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.11.2002 passed in daim case No. 42/2001, the appellants/claimants preferred this appeal for enhancement. ,.slS !.3-3J.'F: ,;!!:li ill? 2. Brief facts for necessary disposal of this case are that on 01.03.2001 the deceased - Omprakash Sahu was going to his village Pingala from Dalli Rajhara. As the deceased reached village Kusumkasa situated on way of Dalli Rajhara—Balod - Durg, at the same time, Mini Bus No. M.P. 24 C 1724 (for short 'offending vehicle') being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently hit the cycle being run by the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries at Pushpa Hospital, Dalli Rajhara. Offence of incident under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. was registered against respondent No.1. 3. The claimants, unfortunate parents and brother of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.9,23,000/- claimed by filing a claim petition U/S 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Act') for the death of Omprakash Sahu in a motor accident on 01.03.2001 when he was hit by the offending vehicle resulting in his instantaneous death. The claimants further pleaded that deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident and was unmarried. The deceased used to earn Rs.150/- per day and Rs.4000/- per month as also Rs.1500/- from Medical Stores. This apart, he also used to earn Rs.3000/- per annum from agricultural works. 4. By filing written statements, the respondents denied the averments made by the claimants. Claimant No. 1 examined himself as A.W.1 and also one Ram Prasad Sinha A.W.2 whereas the respondents did not examine any witness in rebuttal. f 5. After affording opportunity and hearing the parties, the Tribunal on close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, found that the deceased Omprakash Sahu has died in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle driven by respondent'No.1 and the insurer ofthe offending vehicle was liable to pay S "-IS, i^ :i',. ;"' compensation to the claimants. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings given by the Tribunal on this point have now attained finality. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awardiog lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. It has further erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and other heads. Despite the fact that deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal has not taken any proper income and has also not assessed dependency properly. According to him, the dependency ought to have been assessed at Rs.30,000/-, outof which one half (1/2) should have been deducted and thereafter multiplier should have been used. On these premises, learned counsel for the claimants while pointing out the award as meager sum urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably modified or enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and respondent No.3 - insurance company, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned contended that the lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Record of the Tribunal and the impugned order perused. 9. The Tribunal instead of assessing the income of the deceased;the claimants' dependency; selecting the appropriate multiplier, awarded a lump sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Omprakash Sahu in motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest at 7% on the above lump sum compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 10. The Tribunal certainly has fallen into error in not assessing the compensation payable to the-.claimants in the prescribed manner, by first assessing the income of the deceased and the claimants' dependency and then computing the compensation by multiplying the annual .^- ^sss ^^ dependency with the appropriate multiplier. 1, therefore, propose to re- compute the compensation in the above prescribed manner. 11. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Omprakash was earning Rs.150/- per day and.Rs.4000/- per month as also Rs.1500/- from Medical Stores and also Rs.3000/- per annum from agriculturalworks, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. I, therefore, propose to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 12. Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was inserted in the year 1994 reads as under: / "163 A. 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 authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case sof 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 claimantshall not be re3quired to plead or establish that the death or permanent disabjement 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 Seco'nd Schedule." 13. A bare perusal of the above provision, it is clear that 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. The Courts / Tribunal can take judicial note of the 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, in view of the fact that the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-Section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act taking into consideration the cost of living. 14. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum was prescribed in theSecond ScheduletoSection 163-A ofthe Act in the year 1994. The accident in the present case, wherein the deceased lost his life, took place in the year 2001. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2001, the year of accident in the present case are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15.000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule to Section 163- A of the Act in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2001. I, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 15. Considering thatthe deceased Omprakash Sahu was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage, his contribution to the parents would have been reduced, 1 deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 16. The deceased was unmarried man in the present case. Therefore, multiplier of 10 is proper, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer & another, (2003) 8 SCC 731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are the parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 1Q. Accordingly, by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.,1,50,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5, OOO/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants become entitled' to receive a total sum of 's\ ;•• \ •v-.-<' v^- wM Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation for the death of Omprakash Sahu in the motor accident. 17. Learned counsel 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. 18. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Omprakash Sahu lost his life, took place in the year 2001; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2001; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2002 and the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation was filed by the appellants in the year 2003 and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2010. Considering all the relevant factors including 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, 1 quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- at Rs.6000/-. 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.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- with further quantified interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 20. Respondent No.3 - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.66,000/- (Rs.60,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. Noorder as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge