HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIViSEON BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Mlsc. Appeai No. 902 of 2006 ADpeliarits RESPONDENTS 1. Radheylaf, son of iate Bharosaram, aged about 45 years, 2. Santlai son of Shri Radhelal Sinha, aged about 20 years. 3. E^lilap son of Shri Radhelai Sinha, aged about 18 years. Ali are resident of viiiage Borsi, Tah. Nagri, Dlstrict Dhamtari Versus 1. Fagu Ram son of Shri Motiram, 2. Narendra Kumar son of Mahabeer , Prasad Gupta. Both are resident of New Bus Stand, Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari 3. The New india insurance Company Limited, G.E. Road; Power House Bhilai, distt. Durg (C.G.) MiSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OFTHE MOTORVEHSCLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri G.S. Agrawat, learned Senior Counsei wlth Shri Salf Khan, learned counse! for the appeliants. Shri R.S. Patei, iearned counsei for respondents N.0.1& 2. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawai, iearned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsej for respondent No.3. ORDER l»rd (23rd September, .^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Dhamtari, District Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 04.04.2006, passed in Ciaim Case No. 139/2005. 2) As against the compensation or Rs.10,70,800/- daimed by the appeliants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and sons of deceased Uifi Bai by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act, for her death in the motor accident on 14.06.2005, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petitjon till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri G.S. Agrawal, learned Senior Counset for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and jn assessing her income at Rs. 15.000/- per annum only; and in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.1 ,50,000/- oniy. 4) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawai, learned Senior Counse! for respondent No.3 the New india tnsurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants couid not establlsh the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the TribunaE is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. IINB^ 5) Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 also supported the award. 6) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunai that deceased UIfi Bai died on account of the injuries sustajned by her in the motor accident on 14.06.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Minibus; as the offending vehicle Minibus, on the date of the accident, was Insured with the New india Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the claimants; have now attained finajity. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore; affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 7) The TribunaE assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notionai income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehlcles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, t'ne claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the muitiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,50,0007- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Uifi Bai in the motor accident. 8) The ciaimants pleaded that deceased Ulfi Bai used to earn Rs.100/- per day as iabour. The Tribunai finding that the evidence ^ ite g .. ;;L .--^" 4 ^ led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not acceptable, assessed her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act. 9) Notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Ulfi Bai iost her life took place in the year 2005. 10) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Scheduie was introduced in the year 1994 reads as foiiows : "[163 A. Specla! 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 iaw, the owner of the motor vehicie or the authorized insurer shatl 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 ciaimant 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 rf:*^ ^tiB.:, .^'- act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Centrat Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification jn the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the SecondSchedule." 11) The above quoted Sub-Section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act mandated the Centrai Government to amend the Second Scheduie from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 12) As the Central Government has faiied 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 tivlng 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 accident in the present case, wherein deceased Ulfi Bai lost her life took piace in the year 2005. If the increase in the prices of the essentiai commodities and the cost of Siving during the period between the year 1994 and the year 2005, are taken into consideratlon, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Scheduie In the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2005. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 14) Considering that the ciaimants are husband and sons of deceased Ulfi Bai and both the sons are primariiy dependant on ,-€S^., , .^;»-^ "'^ their father claimant No.1 Radheyiai,. we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. The ciaimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. 15) Considering that deceased Uifi Bai was aged about 45 years; her husband daimant No.1 Radheylal was aiso aged about 45 years and the two sons were aged about 20 and 18 years, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 11 would be appropriate in the present case. 16) By muitipiying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the muitiplier of 11; the compensation works out to Rs.1,98,000/-. The ciaimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the husband; and Rs.5,000/- towards ioss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,13,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Uifi Bai in the motor accident. 17) Learned counsei for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dlspute between the parties about the period for which the ciaimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantifled In thjs appea! Itseif. 18) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased U!fi Bai iost her iife took place in the year 2005; thedaim petition was filed by the ciaimants in the year 2005; the impugned award was ,-';•.%' --, •r^.S<;; v'" // // ^.--z- k«^^ passed by the Tribunal in the year 2006; the present appeal was filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2006; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering aii the relevant factors including the deiay in disposai of the ciaim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the insurance Company aione is not to be biamed for the deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/- at Rs.5,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation Is aiiowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1 ;50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,13,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the New India insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.68,000/- (Rs.63,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunai. 21) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi