^'^^ ^' ^f' '^ <y/ /j;'i gf ^k. ........^.^ 1^ I! %!S2h l ^—^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Claimant ^c., Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 417 of 2010 Harchand Gadewal, s/o late Shri Sakha Ram Gadewal, aged about 62 years, r/o near Kanji House, Balgee Basti, Korba, tahsil Katghora, distt. Korba C.G. At present address I.T.1. Rampur, Korba, tahsil & distt. Korba C.G. VERSUS 1 Balister Prasad, s/o Shri Bhulan Prasad Tiwari, aged about 57 years, r/o Fokatpara behind Billu Dukan, police station Kotwali, Korba, dist. Korba C.G. (Driver of vehicle) 2 Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, s/o Shri Balram Agrawal, r/o Darri Road Korba, Police Station city Kotwali, Korba, distt. Korba C.G. (Driver of the vehicle is wrongly mention in the impugned order present respondent is a owner of vehicle) 3 United India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Stadium Road, Korba, tahsil and distt. Korba C.G. (Insurer of vehicle) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act ^ Present: Shri R.S. Baghel, counsel for the appelfant. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. MAC.No. 417 of 2010 ORDER ^th (09mAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 15.01.2010, passed in Claim Case No.92/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,15,000/- claimed by the appellanV claimapt, unfortunate husband of deceased Smt. Koltima Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 12.05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/- 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 the claimant's wife Smt. Koltima Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 12.05.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G.-12/9468; as the 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 i M.A.C.NO. 417 of 2010 'c Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 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 50% of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.7,500/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.7,500/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.37,500/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.52,500/-. The Tribunal, apparently, on account of some mistake in para 15 of the impugned award, which is operative para of the award, awarded Rs.52,000/- only in place of Rs.52,500/- assessed in para 14 of the award as compensation to the claimant for the death of his wife Smt. Koltima Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.52,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri R.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of MAC.No. 417 of 2010 ^aa^ the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000/- only. 7) Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimant could not establish any definite and regular income ofthe deceased, the compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimant pleaded that his wife Smt. Koltima Bai, used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month from tailoring work, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and her income to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 9) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15.000/- per annum in the year 2008 on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. M.A.C.NO. 417 of 2010 ^a^ ^- 10) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was 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(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 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." 11) 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. 12) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) ofSection 163-A MAC.No. 417 of 2010 ^ 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 ofaccident in the given case. 13) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimant's wife Smt. Koltima Bai lost her life took place in the year 2008. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the 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 atleast Rs.36,000/- in the year 2008. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 14) Considering that there were only two members in the family of the deceased i.e. the deceased herself and her husband, sole claimant in the case Harchand Gadewal, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceasedtowards her personal expenses. The claimant's dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 18,0007- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 15) Claimant Harchand Gadewal has been found to be 62 years of age on the date of the accident by the Tribunal. 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 prescribes the multiplier of 7 for the M.A.C.NO. 417 of 2010 cf\ age group between 61-65 years. In our opinion, multiplier of 7 would be appropriate in the present case. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,0007- with the multiplier of 7, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,26,0007-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the husband. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,41,000/- as compensation for the death of his wife Smt. Koltima Bai 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 claimant is 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, 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 ofRs.89,000/-at Rs.11,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,41,000/- with further quantified MAC.No. 417 of 2010 amount of interest of Rs.11,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.89,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,00,0007- (Rs.89,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 11,0007- towards quantified. amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.89,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. nimmj Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge