@g ORDER (18"‘ April, 2011) 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 12‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 05.07.2005, passed in Claim Case No.86/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/—, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and sister of deceased Nazeem Ashraf, by filing a claim petition Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 27.06.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,75,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 ofxthe entire evidence led before it held that deceased Nazeem Ashraf died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.06.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle indica Car bearing registration No.CG~O6-1700; as the above offending vehicle lndica Car on the date of the accident was insured with the National insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy‘conditions, the lnsura‘nce Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not med any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribuna‘ have now attained fmaiity. ’ 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. By deducting 1i3"’ of Rs.15,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 0,000/— per annum. By multiplying-the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/— with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,75,000I- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Nazeem Ashraf in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,75,000I— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, learned 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 Rs.15,000‘l- per annum only; and in awarding low Compensation of Rs.1 ,75,000/— only. - 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the National insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle lndica Car, on the other hand supported the award and contended that, the compensation of Rs.1 ,75,000/- awarded by the 52$ Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident ciaim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall eXamine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The claimants pleaded that deceased Nazeem Ashraf used to earn Rs.18,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in a private concern namely Tyrex India at Raipur. The Tribunal on a thorough scrutiny of the evidence Ied' by the claimants about the income of the deceased in paras 19 to 21 has discarded the evidence of AW2 Niyajuddin for cogent and sound reasons spelt out in these paragraphs. 11) On a re-appreciation of the entire evidence about the income of the deceased, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly discarded the claimants’ evidence in that behalf. 12) Nevertheiess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/— per annum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires re-consideration. 13) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : o “[163 A. Special pravisions 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 thevmotor vehicle or the authorized insurer shaii be iiable to pay in the case of death or permanent disabiement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicie, 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 1‘923). (2) In 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) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.” 14) The above quoted Sub —‘ Section (3) of Section 163 — A of the‘Act mandated the Central Government to ame‘hd the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. .15) As the Central Government has failed in amending the \\ Second Schedule as provided in Sub —'Section (3) of Section @ 163 7 A of the Act, the Courts I Tribunal can take judicial notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the'cost of iiving during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 16) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Nazeem Ashraf lost his life took place in the year 2004. lf the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and 2004 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000l- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly 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. 17) Considering that deceased Nazeem Ashraf was unmarried on the date of the accident, and after his marriage his contribution to the parents would have been reduced substantially, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Aharned and others Vs Mohammad Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Suprenie Court Cases 225. The claimants dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,090/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.§6,000/- toWards the personal expenses of the deceased. 18) As the claimants are parents and sister of the deceased, the appropriateamultiplier wouid be-1o in view of the dictum of the Apex Coutt in the case of Municipal 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 multiplier should never exceed 10. 19) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1 ,80,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Nazeem Ashraf in the motor accident. ‘20) The claimants are further awarded Rs.2,000/- towards quantified i amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,75,000l— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000]- on the enhanced amount of -\ compensation of Rs.15,000l-. 22) Respondent No.2 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.17,G00/- (Rs.15,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000I- towards quantified amount of interest