HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR" DIVISION BENCH ‘ CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RL JHANWAR. J. MA No.54 of 2003 I { 1 Smt Ambika Thakur, aged 3D years, ‘3; wife of iate Upendra Singh Thakur '- ‘ 2 Ku. Anita Thakur, aged 16 years‘ daughter of late Upendra Singh Thakur 3 Ajay Singh Thakur, aged 13 years, son of late Upendra Singh Thakur 4 Abhay Singh Thakur, aged 10 years, son of fate Upendra Singh Thakur Appellants represented mother, Smt Ambika No.2 by their to Thakur natural '4 a“ guardian minor 5 \r ‘1 All resident or Ambika Bhawan, Glta Nagar, Choubey Colony, Ralpur CG Versus l Malkeet Singh, son of Shri Nikka Singh permanent resident of lndore, at present resident of Clo Royal Carriers, Tatibandh, Ralpur CG ' 2 Maghar Singh, son of Shri Nikka Singh, resident of Clo Royal Carriers, Tatibandh, Ralpur CG 3 The Oriental insurance Company, Division Office, No.2. Chawla Copmplex, Sai nagar, Devendra Nagar, Riapur CG Memorandum of I under Sectin 173 f ‘ 7 M?t0f \Lenigtss Act._1§§8 r a ,7; i M i/Ari%§nn MK Bhaduri, counsel for the appellants. ,l l kl ’ @ @ None for respondents No.1 and 2 though sewed. Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. (12m Novoew‘grer, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.11.2002, passed in Claim Case No.15l2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.14,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, and minor children of deceased Upendra Singh Thakur by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident .on 14.08.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation along with interest Q 9% per annum from the date of the tiling 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 Upendra Singh Thakur died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on ‘ 14.08.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.MP-26-BI1062; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited, and the insurance Company could not , //,/ establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance /",./ / Company was liable to pay 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 fmaiity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By muttiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,60,000l-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Upendra Singh Thakur in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,60,000l- @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri MK Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appetlants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not believing the claimants’ 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 ,60,000/- only. 7) Shri Saurabh Sharma, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation, of Rs.1,60,000/— awarded by. the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. . H “"t 8) ln a motor accident claim case what is imponant is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunats should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. it should neither be a meager amount of compensation. nor i , a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Upendra Singh Thakur used to earn Rs.1’,00,000l- per annum, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The‘solitary income tax return for the assessment year 1999-2000 was conSidered by the Tribunal in paras 13 to 20 of the impugned award and has been discarded by giving sound reasons. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants" evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000l- per annum in the year 2001 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Section 163 — A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced. in the year 1994 reads as follows : “[163 A. Special provisions as to payment v of. compensation on structured formula basis - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the - time being in forceor inStrument having the If force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or 1 the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in i 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) ln 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) TherCentral 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 168 :- A of the Act mandated the Central Govemment to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 14) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub — Sectionv‘ (3) of Section 163 — A of the Act, the Couets I Tribunal can take judicial notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of asliVing during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. .../ a 15) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Upendra Singh Thakur lost his Iife took place in the year 2001. if the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between 1994 It and 2001 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 2001. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/— per annum. 16) By deducting the usual 1/3'“ of Rs.30.000/- towards the - personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants" dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/-, per annum. 17) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their children, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 16 seiected by the Tribunal is appropriate in the present case. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/— with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.3,20,000I-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,35,000/- as compensation forthe death of deceased Upendra Singh Thakur in the motor accident. 19) ‘ Leamed counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute betWeen the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced ‘_ m \ amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeai itself. 120) Considering ail 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 of Rs.1,75,000/— at Rs.1 5,000/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons. the appeal med by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is alloWed in part. The compensation ‘ of Rs.1,60,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is ‘ enhanced to Rs.3,35,00Q/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.15,000l- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,75,000/-. 22) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rs.1,75,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.15,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,75‘OOOI-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. I” Sd/- // 5d]- l 3‘ R.L.:Jhanwar / . CHIEIFVJUSTICE I Judge padma r 1 W ~r” «1 I