^ F. ^\. ^^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DSVSSSQN BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRS RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J Appeilants (CSaimants) ^^^^^ Respondents IVS.A.(ClNo.2S1of2008 1. Smt Rukhmani Bai, Wd/o Ganesh Ram Verma, aged about 35 years 2. Ku. SantoshJ, D/o Late Ganesh Ram Verma, aged about 15 years 3. Ku. Mamta, D/o Late Ganesh Ram Verma, aged about 9 years 4. Pitamber, S/o Late Ganesh Ram Verma, aged about 7 years 5 Nagesh, S/o Late Ganesh Ram Verma, aged about 5 years Appeiaint No.02 to 05 are minors through their natural guardian Appellant No.01 Smt Rukhmani Bai (Mother) All R/o VilSage Patharidih, PS Paiari, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versys 1. Bashim Khan S/o Abbas Musiman, aged baotu 25 years, R/o Moudhapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh ——Owner 2 Suresh, S/o Khetan Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Shitaiapara, Gudiyari, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) -——— Driver 3 The New India insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, RDA Building, Bajrang Market, GE Road, Raipur ——Insurer - Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act Present : Shri JSp Chandrasen, Counse! for the appellants. None for respondent No.1 though ser^/ed. Shri Dasarath Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.3. Qrder (10th March, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appeilants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.11.2007 passed in Claim Case No.184/2006. 2) As against the compensation of' Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the appeilants/daimants, unfortunate widow, chiidren of deceased Ganesh Ram by flling a claim petitlon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 16.04.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of RS.272,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the parties held that deceased Ganesh Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.04.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehide minibus; as the offending vehicle mjnibus on the date of the accident was insured with the New Endia Insurance ^y^ ^' ^^^. Company Limited, the Insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.600/- towards his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,400/- per monthand Rs.16,800/- per annum. By multipiy'ing the annual dependency of Rs.16,800/- with the muttiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,52,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,72,500/- as compensation to the daimants for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram In the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,72,500/- @ 7% per annum from the date of the fiiing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 5) Shri JSP Chandrasen, learnedcounsei for the appellants submltted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,72,500/- only. 6) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsei for respondent No.3 The New India 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.2,72,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and ^^-^ ^y proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Ganesh Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offendlng vehicle minibus; and the insurer of the offending vehicie minibus was liable to pay compensation to the ciaimants have now attained finality. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ganesh Ram used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month from agriculture, the evldence led in that behaif was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunai in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the TribunaE at Rs.2,000/- per month in the year 2006 is certainly on the iower side and requires re-consideration. 10) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notionat income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11) Section 163 - A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows: "[183 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 iiabie 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 daimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disabiement 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 cost of living by notification in the OfficiaJ Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 12) 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 ttie cost of living. 13) As the Centrai 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 inthe year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 14) Now, reverting to the present case, the accident wherein deceased Ganesh Ram lost hls life took place in the year 2006. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between 1994 and 2006 are taken into consideration, the notionai income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 15) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 16) Considering the age of the deceased and his widow, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case. 17) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 14 the compensation works out to Rs.3,36,000/-. 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 ciaimants, thus, become entitled to receive a totai sum of Rs.3,51,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram in the motor accident. ^r^^;^^ 18) Learned 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 amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantifled in this appeal jtself. 19) Considering all the relevant factors including the deiay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be biamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.78,500/- at Rs.7,500/-. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flied by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensat'ion is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,72,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,51,000/- with further quantifled amount of interest of Rs.7,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.78,500/-. 21) Respondent No.3 The New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.86,000/- (Rs.78,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.78,500/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 22) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma