'^ f~^> '^ Q-^)^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DjVjSjQNBENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUMAR SiNHA, J, ApRellants Ciaim 4;j Be^i' Mlisc. Appeal No. 1221 of 2003 1 Smt Lalita Bai, aged 35 years, Widow of Late Nandram Sahu 2 Ku. Hema Pushpa, aged about 13 years : 3 Hiteshwar Kumar, aged about 8 years 4 Prakash, aged about 1 year Appellants No.2 to 4 are sons of deceased Nandram Sahu, through their mother Lalita Bai as next friend. 5 Ramadhar Sahu, aged about 65 years, son of Devnath Sahu. 6 Revaty Bai, wife of Shri Ramadhar Sahu. Ail are resident of village Mandibhatha Chowld, Bhakhra, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS 3 Ramesh Rao alias Laxman Rao, age 40 years, son of Kartik Ram Sahu, resldent of Kurra, P.S. Kumd, Tah. and District Dhamtari (C.G.). Vishnu Ram Sahu, aged about 50 'years, son of Shri Heera Ram Sahu, resident of PiparchKli, P.S. Aijuni, Tahsil and DisSrict Dhamtari (C.G.). The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limitjed, Near Aadarsh Vidya Mandir, Dhamtari (C.G.). (lnsurerofCG-05/2677 ^ !"!!' Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehictes Act Present : Shri G.S. Agrawal, leamed Senior Counsel with Shri Aditya Khare, learned counse! for the appellants. Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and2. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (28th August, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal fbr enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Aceident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.09.2003, passed in claim case No.39/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.21,31,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of deceased Nandkumar Sahu in the motor accictent on 11.01.2003, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.1,65,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per einnum 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 Nandkumar Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the mbtor accident on 11 .01 -2(X)3; the acciefent occurred due to rash and negfigent drtving of the motorcyctist of the motorcycle bearing registration No.CGOS-ZE/ '2--9 2677; as the above Motorcycle, on the date of the accident, was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the clalmants. 4) As the respondents have not fited any appeat against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attainedfinatity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day and Rs.1,250/- per month assyming that the deceased was getting work only for 25 days in a month By deducting Rs.250/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,56,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,00)/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,65,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Nandkumar Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) ShriG.S. Agrawal, leamed Senior Counsel with Shri Aditya Khare, tearned 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 !i-:!lll ^ ^.'•<.''yi 9i::fS Rs.50/- per day and Rs.1,250/- per month; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,65;000/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi,.teamed counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and driver of the motorcycle also supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Nandkumar Sahu used to eam Rs.150 - 200/- per day from his Photo-framing shop, the evidence led in that behalf was not at all clinching. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discardina the claimants' evidence about the income of the 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,250/- per month is certainly on the lower side and requires rec9nsjcteratlon. 11) The Tribunal while diseardina the claimants' evidenee about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule :ri3S under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. ^^ 12) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as foltows : ;l!iB ww 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 liabte to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use 6f motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as tte case may be. Exptanation - For the purposes of thls sub-section, "permanent disabitity" 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 requtred 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 concemed or of any other person. (3) The Centrat Government may, keeping in view the cost of tiving by notification in the Officiat Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedute." 13) The above quoted Sub- section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second Schedute from time to time keeping in viewthe cost of living. ^3 'l!!:?-- "•"1"S? 14) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedute as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act, the Courts/ Tribunal can take judicial nottee of increase in the prices of essential commodlties and the cost of IMng 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 Nandkumar Sahu lost his life took place in the year 2003. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2003 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 2003. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the ineome ofthe deceased at Rs.SO.OCX)/- per annum. 16) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.30,OCK)/- towards the pereonal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 17) Considering jthe age of the deceased, his widow, their children and parents of the deceased, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 12 would be appropriate in the present case. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation works out to Rs.2,W,000/-. The claimants°"are further entitted to receive a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,(KX)/- for loss of estete; and -z^ i)"K Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to recelve a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Nandkumar Sahu In the motor accident. 19) Learned counset for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitted to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified fn this appeal itself. 20) Considering all the relevant factore inctuding the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that Insurance Company atone 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.90,000/- at Rs.11 ,OW/- 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunaf is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of Interest of Rs.11,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.90,000/-. 22) Respondent No.3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,01,000/- (Rs.90,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.11,000/- towards quantified amount of interest Z-T' on the enhanced amount of compensation pf Rs.90,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. Sd/- Quef Jusdce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge iubbu iS'iiMSt. :i'ii"^.i