fr-l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 143 of 2008 1 Jageshwar Sahu, S/o Ankur Sahu, agedabout 46 years 2 Smt Subhashjni Sahu, W/o Jageshwr Sahu, aged about 42 years Both R/o Village Chinwarakuta, Post - Singhoda, Tehsil - Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS Respondents Non-claimants -»-. '<.. ^ Ghasiram Chouhan, S/o Joidha Chouhan, aged abouf 33 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Mahal Para, Saraipali, Tehsil - Saraipali, District - Mahasamund' (CG) (Drh/er of vehicle Mini Bus bearing registration No.CG- 06/A-8286) Jashwant Singh Saluja, S/o Indier Singha Saluja, Occupation Registered owner of vehicle Mini Bus CG-06/A-8286, R/o Village Basna, Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund (CG) The New India Insurance Company Limited, through ' Divisional Offiee, Divisional Manager, Madina Building, Jail Road, Kutchery, Raipur; District Raipur (CG) (Insurer vehicle Mini Bus bearing registration NO.CG-06/A-8286) Bajeer Singh Choudhari, S/o Mohan Singh Choudhari, aged about 28 years, Occupation - Driver, through MS Transport Gorporation of India, 17/6, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Hariyana (Driver of vehicle Trailer Container r^ bearing registration No.HR 51/GA- ut 1437) M.S.Transport Corporation of India, Tatibandh, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) Other Address - M.S. Transport Corporation of India, 17/6, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Hariyana (Registered owner of vehicle Trailer Container bearing registration No.HR 51/GA- 1437) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Madina Buitding, Kutohery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) (tnsurer owner of vehicle Trailer Container bearing registration No.HRSI/GA-1437) < -»•> '? ^s Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Mukesh Sharma, counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondentNo.6. ORDER (4th May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Mukesh Kumar Sahu are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, »>'.. ''niifflBiSrn ^y.SS^ il? Vs^:3!b. 1 J Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.10.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 19/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Mukesh Kumar Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicl^s Act, for his death in the motor accident on 28.10.2005, the Tribuna] awarded a total sum of Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the 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 Mukesh Kumar Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.10.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle minibus bearing registration No.CG-06 A-8286; as the above offending vehicle minlbus 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 the compensation to the claimants. 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.t5,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the .»i,..?laS^.. <K. '>;. «i»-qa !isis •^l.. i !, :„. ''^':'-' •/ -'if. f\: -»•> x personal expensesof 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 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum.of Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Mukesh Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income ofthe;deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle minibus, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as deceased Mukesh Kumar Sahu was not having any independent income on the date of the accident, the compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal isjustand proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Mukesh Sharma and Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.4, 5 and 6, the driver, owner and insurerof the othervehicle trailor also supported the award. / ff! .» *^PfF^pKB^TT^i-; iillWSNii"—""1* •&..N V"'s \' 9) 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. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case 11) The claimants' son deceased Mukesh Kumar Sahu was aged about 18-19 years on the date of the accident. He was a student of 12 standard. As there was neither any pleading nor any evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased, the compensation is required to be assessed on the basis of the notional income of the deceased. 12) In the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act;the notional income of Rs.15,000/-was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. 13) Section 163-A ofthe 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 tegal 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 eost of living by notification in the Ofncial Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 14) 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. 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 aceident wherein the claimants' son Mukesh Kumar Sahu lost his life took place in the year^pOS. If the increase in the prices of essential ^.^, r ^s '''ssss, .»1 \; commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainiy come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2005. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 17) As the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and the claimants are parents of the deceased, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased in view ofthe dicta ofthe Apex Court in the cases ofSyed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs 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 Supreme Court Cases 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 18) Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, multiplier of 10, in our opinion, would be appropriate in the present case 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. 19) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier oft,10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The ^^ claimants arejyrt^er entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral r" • i' ^ ^^^^S^ -;,i s s a ^S^ •^-tc-S^ ^' '%!, 8 -*••. ?: 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 deceased Mukesh Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. 20) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Trlbunal 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 bequantified in this appeal itself. 21) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, inctuding the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, andthe 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.68,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 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.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,OCX)/-. 23) Respondent No.3 the New India tnsurance Company Limited is grant6d three months' time for depositing the total sum of :6 ^a. .^ ^ -^. 3. % ^,. . ..^' %.,2^ IK%SfS£? r .<? '--.. .»-. ibbu Rs.75,000/- (Rs.68,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,OOOA) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 24) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwa! Judge x ^'. -•"I