<^.F./:<. /(^. h^ 11^» 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 Driver Owner Insurer Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1462 of 2009 1. Smt. Amrika Bai aged about 38 years, w/o late Samrath Patel, 2. Nandkumar Patel, aged about 16 years, s/o late Samrath Patel, 3. Ku. Gaytari aged about 14 years, d/o late Samrath Patel, No. 2 and 3 being minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Amrika Bai aged about 38 years, w/o late Samrath Patel, All by caste Marar, r/o village Awaspara, Ghotha, thana and tahsil Bhanupratappur, distt. U.B. Bastar. VERSUS 1. Pradeep Singh aged about 38 years, s/o Ram Ashish Thakur, by caste Kshtriya, r/o village Chougel thana Bhanupratappur, distt. Kanker. 2. Dinesh Mishra, aged about 50 years, s/o R.D. Mishra, by caste Bramhan, r/o Nayapara, Bhanupratappur, distt. Kanker. 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Durg Parak Bhawan, Station Road, Durg. Appeal underSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.P. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. -^^ t t^^ws^. K ti ^^^^•^'"e i! 'i. """"!" J^ '%,.. ^^^ ^^^' :?»!^ ORDER (27th July, 2011) 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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, district Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.1Q.2009, passed in Claim Case No.34/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 16,60,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Samrath Patel, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 15.03.2009 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.03.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Samrath Patel died on 15.03.2009 on accourit ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.03.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.-19/T-0256; as the aboveoffending vehicle Jeep on the date of the accident was insured with the New India 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. <"y%^ "^. © L,. 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.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 15,0007- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Samrath Patel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) Shri Parag Kotecha, 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.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- only. 7) Shri H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that asthe claimants could not establish any ^^-^^.•^^ .»yAp "~ "'" --•.'^\-^^ '^"'. ^ """^ v .^•^^> '• . "'' ^ '^•••'-. :>. •^•/;w<./^ <?. ^L.. definite and regular income ofthe deceased, the compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- 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.2,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Samrath Patel used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by selling condiments and working as Senior Associate in a Marketing Company, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidenceabout the income ofthe deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum in the year 2009 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his h^rf- income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule underSection 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 13) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedulewas introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows: "[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(l), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim hasbeen made was dueto 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." 9) 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. ^rt 14) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as providedin 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 the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 15) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Samrath Patel lost his life took place in the year 2009. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2009 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 at least would come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2009. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 17) Considering that deceased Samrath Patel was shown to be 45 years of age in his postmortem report, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 14 has been prescribed for the age group between 41-45 years. "^ ^: (j L 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 14, the compensation works out to Rs.3,36,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,51,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Samrath Patel in the motor accident. 19) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal 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. 20) 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 the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.96,000/- at Rs.9,000/-. 21) For the foregping reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,51,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.9,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.96,000/-. <<?^'c. 22) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.96,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.96,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu N»^