^.RT^ ^^.^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Claimants Respondents MiscADDeaKClNo.1030 of 2010 1 Shankar Lal Rathore, aged about 50 years,sonof Bhojram Rathore 2 Smt Krishna Rathore, aged about 44 years, wife of Shankarlal Rathore All residents of Janjgir, district Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1 Uma Shankar Shukla, son of GP Shukla, residence of Vardhman Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Near Jhankar Talkies 2 Omkardas Manikpuri, son of Laindas, Manikpuri, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office near Jhankiar Talkies, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act Present : Shri Om P Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri AK Athaley and Ms Renu Singh, counsel on behalf of Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (21st September,2011) 7- ~-( MAC No.1030 of 2010 The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.10.2009, passed in Claim Case No.36/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- claimed by theappellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Bhuru @ Praveen Rathore by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 01.07.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,14,5007- as compensation alongwith 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 claimants' son Bhuru @ Praveen Rathore died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.07.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tanker bearing registration No.CG-17 H/1106; as the above offending vehicle Tanker on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurarice 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. ^ ^--^ -^ iSgteS'EBij,^ g 'iigglK-!li!1 g ~~^_// t. t -•f MAC No.1030 of 2010 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.20,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.20,000/- 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 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,00,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.14,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,14,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Bhuru @ Praveen Rathore in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,14,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Om P Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants 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.20,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% 6f the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,14,500/- only. 7) Shri AK Athaley and Ms Renu Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited,. the insurer of the offending ,^^<, ^,' s'?;K''£^"l:^«i? Si jff ^jy '•^B'yEaS^' r- MAC No. 1030 of 2010 vehicle Tanker on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,14,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In 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 should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,14,5007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Bhuru @ Praveen Rathore used to earn Rs.300/- per day from his cycle store, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.300/- per day. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) . Nevertheless, the incomeofthe deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- per annum in the year 2008 is certainly on the lower side and requires re-consideration. 12) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased, ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. __.J '".^ s MAC No. 1030 of 2010 r 13) 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 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 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 1 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." 14) The above quoted Sub - Section (3) of Section 163 - A of Ihe Act mandated the CentralGovernment to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in vjew the cost of living. ,^"^J1£iiCT'^<('\ MAC No.1030 of 2010 r' -^ 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 / Tribunal can take judicial notice of 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. 16) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein claimants'son deceased Bhuru @ Praveen Rathore lost his life took place in the year 2008. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities andthe 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 Rs.36,000/- in the year 2008. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 17) Considering that deeeased Bhuru @ Praveen Rathore on the date of the accident was unmarried and the claimants are his parents, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel andanother reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 . The claimants' dependency, MACNo.1030 of 2010 therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 18) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased and 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 areparents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 19) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 1 8,000/- 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 son Bhuru @ Praveen Rathore in the motor accident. 20) 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 amountof compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amouht of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 21) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter 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, we quantify theamount of interest _^_J ^'-L^ 8 MAC No.1030 of 2010 padma on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75,500/- at Rs.7,500/-. 22) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,14,500/- awarded by the Tribunal isenhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75,500/-. 23) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.83,000/- (Rs.75,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 24) No order as to costs. /— Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge t^