-A-.T-- 4^.^. f*^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARHA'LBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 584 of 2011 Appellants Claimants Kajindri Bai Dewangan w/o late Ramkishun Dewangan aged about 45 years House Wife. Ramkishun Dewangan, s/o Aalen Dewangan aged about 50 years (died on 07/07/06) L.R.S. All ready on record. Ku. Sharada Dewangan d/o late Ramkishun Dewangan aged about 20 years. All R/o village Fingeswer district RaipurC.G. VERSUS Khileshwar Patel s/o Milap Ram Patel vehicle Driver, r/o Ward No.4, Arang, Tahsil & district Raipur C.G. The United Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. Memo of appeal under S^ctjon 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri A.L. Singraul, counsel for the appellants. ^•"'~'" Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (14th November, 2011) Respondents Non-appellants r ?2S'^. »^s ,/ a MAC.No. 584 of 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 First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.03.2003, passed in Claim Case No.90/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and sister of deceased Ravindra Dewangan @ Raju, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motoraccident on 05.06.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.92,000/- as compensation along with 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 deceased Ravindra Dewangan @ Raju died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.06.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the ^driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.MIT-8899; as fhe above offending vehicle Truck, on the date of the accident, was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. £ffT^^ ^>*E;'5'7?"i^ ii Ei '»&is,»"ag j|i ^ '-te^^" ^%^sy '•Vti-s'S&V-'-' M.A.C.No.584of2011 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.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,0007- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 9, the compensation was worked out to Rs.90,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.92,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ravindra Dewangan @ Raju in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.92,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri A.L. Singraul, 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 incorrie at Rs.45,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 9; in awarding only Rs.2,000/- under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.92,000/- only. 7) Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of •J^" A.C.No. 584 of 2011 ^ 7fe\ the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish any definite and regular income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ravindra Dewangan @ Raju used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by selling garments, 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.4,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2002 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 10) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : "[163A. Special provisiQns as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.—(1) Notwithstanding anythtog 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 thecase of death or permanent disablement due to aecident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as M.A.C. No. 584 of 2011 ^' 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 of1923). (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 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 Ceotral Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 11) The above quoted Sub- section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second Schedulefrom time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 12) 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 commoaities 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. 13) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Ravindra Dewangan @ Raju lost his life took place in the year_2002. If the increase in the prices of the MAC.No. 584 of 2011 *^ essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2002 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,,000/- in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 14) Considering that deceased Ravindra Dewangan @ Raju was unmarried on the date of the accident, 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 Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 15) As the claimants are parents and sister of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the present case would be 10 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 are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,000/-. l.-^i '^S^.S-""".: ^ '^S!^/'1 ^^ ''"Lf'y AC.No. 584 of 2011 w •^ 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.1,60,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ravindra Dewangan @ Raju in the motor accident. 17) 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. 18) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 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.92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensatiori of Rs.68,000/-. 20) Respondent No.2 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three morths' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy-five thousand only) (Rs.68,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of ,f'' .^ •^•^•. ! \ ;•/ ;'/? ^ MAC.No. 584 of 2011 compensation of Rs.68,000/-) before the concerning Claims 21) No order as to costs. SdA Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi <-.<