^.p.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT B!LASPUR DiyjSiONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR. J ADpeilants Claimants Misc. Appea! (0 No.94 of 2006 1 R Rajendra Prasad, S/o Shri Ramarao Prasad,Aged about 48 years, R/o Gouli Para, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Distt Raipur (CG) 2 R Lakshml, W/o R Rajendra Prasad, Age about 45 years, R/o Gouli Para, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Tahsit & Distt Ralpur (CG). . ^: Respondents VERSUS Banke Babu Shukia. S/o Shri Ashwini Kumar Shukia, Aged about 28 years^R/o Viliage - Kopra, PS Rajim, Tahsii & Dis - Raipur (CG) _Smt Saima.Begum, W/o Shri Sheikh Hussain, R/o Noorani Chowk, Pandri Road, Tahsil & Distt Rajpur (CG) The New india Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisiona! Offlce, First Ftoor, Madina Bhavan, Jail Road, Tahsil & Distt Raipur IVijsceSianeousADDeal underSection 173 of Motor Vehlcles Act Present : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel forthe appeilants Smt. Chitra Shrlvastava, counse! for respondent No.3. QRDER (31st March, 2011) -^ 2 The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Hemant Kumarare the appeilants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 25.01.2006, passed in Claim C^se No. 13/2005. 2) As against the compensation of 25,00,000/- claimed bythe appellants/daimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Hemant Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 13.11 .2004; the Tribunal awarded a total sumof Rs.1,32,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award. 3) The Tribunal on aciose scrutiny of the entireevidence led before it held that the claimants' son Hemant Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.11.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Marshatl Jeep bearing registration No.C.G-04/8969; as the above offending vehicie Marshall Jeep on the dateoftheaccident was insured with the New Indla Insurance Company Limited and the tnsyrance Company could not establish any breach of the poiicy conditions, the Insurance Company was iiable to pay the compensation to the ctaimants. 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 jncome prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rdof Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed atR^.10,000/- perannum. By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the muitipiier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/~. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunai awarded a total sum'ofRs.1,32,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Hemant Kumar in the motor accident. The TribunaJ further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing ofthe award. 6) Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsei for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants'.evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,32,000/- only. .W.'.;::.!:."A^^^.^ 7) Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, tearned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Ensurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,32,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim casewhat is jmportant is thatthe compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and clrcumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount ofcompensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunali is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the daimants pleaded that their son Hemant Kumar used to earn Rs.7,OOQ/- per month as Computer MeGhanlc, no cogent and reliable evidence w^s led before the Tribunal in that behalf. Neither the employer of the deceased nor any coworker was examined before the Tribunai toiestabiish the above. occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.7.000/- per month. In this state ofevidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheiess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lowerside and requires reconsideration. . 12) Section 163 - A of the Act where-under the Second Scheduiewas introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : "[163 A. SpeGial provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in thls Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instmment having the force of law, the owner ofthe motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shail be liabie to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accidentarising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Scheduie, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation - For the purposes of this sub- sectlon, "permanent disabitity" shal! 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 shaii not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect ofwhich the ciaim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negiector default of the owner of the vehicle or vehictes concerned or of any other person. (3) The Centrat Govemment may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 13) The above quoted Sub - Section (3) of Section 163 - A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amfend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of iiving. 14) As the Central Govemment has failed in amending the Second Scheduie 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 Ijving during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of acddent in the given case. 15) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Hemant Kumar lost his llfe took piace in the year 2004. lf the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of Siving during the period between 1 994 and 2004 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedulejn the year 1994wouid certainSy come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that deceased Hemant Kumar was unmarried on the date of the accident, 50% of Rs.36,000/- is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs JVIohammed Jameei and another reported in (2009)2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 17) The ciaimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expensesofthe deceased. 18) Considering that the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the appropriate multipiier in the case would not be more than lOin view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of MunicipaS 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 muitipiiershouldnever exceed 10. 19) By multiplying theannuat dependencyjof Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The claimantsare further awarded Rs.5,000/- for funerai expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The ciaimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total stimof RS.I)QO,OOO/- as compensation for the deathoftheirson Hemant Kumarin the motor acddent. 20) 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 daimants are entitied to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeai ifself. 21) Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Gompany alone is notto be blamed forthe entire 8 deiay in the matter, we qyantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.58,000/-at Rs.7,000/-. 22) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal ifiled by the ctaimants for enhancement of the compensation Js ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- awarded j by the Tribunaj 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.58,000/-,. 23) Respondent No.3 The New India ; Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totaisum of Rs.65,000/- (Rs.58,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensatioh + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation pf Rs.58,000/-) before the concerning CSaims Tribunal. 24) No order as to costs. . subbu Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge