A ?~'R ~.. Q/ HIGH COURT OFlHbHHATTiSGiiRH AT B§LASPUR DWF$!0N BEN6H Gamm : HGN BLE aHRi RAJEEV GUPTA C J & HON BLE SHR! $UNIL KUMAR SRNHA‘ J Was. AppeaE (C) N0. 1M of 2mm Appeiiants 1‘ Kanhaiya Lal Sahu, Sm CWmanm Ghurakhan Lak Sahu, aged abom '43 years, occupation niii. 2A Smt. Perdeshin Bai, W/o Kanhaiya Lai Sahu, aged abcu’t 39 years, occupa’tion nin. 3. Hirvantin Bai D/o Kanhaiya La! Sahu, aged about 23 years occupation nm‘ 4‘ Ku. Tikesmwari, Dfo Kanhaiya La‘ Sahu, aged about 14 years, occupatian nm. 5. Ku. Parva‘ti Baa Dxo Kanhaiya La; 55am, aged abaut 9 wars, occupation nm. Appeiiant no. 4 and 5 are minor through father and guardian Kanhaiya La! Sahu. AH are R/o: ViHage Khaprikala, Tahai§ and Diatriot Rajnandgaon (CG) Varaus RESPONDEN'W 1. Abdut Vahid Khan Slo. Not Known, aged about 35 years, Driver, Through Shyam La! Sahu, 8/0. Ma§esh Ram $ahu, R/o. 19/8, North Gangotri, 3upera, Bhiiai, District Durg (C.G.) Shyam La! Sahu S/o. Late Ma!esh Ram 3am, Occupation Transporter, R/o. 19/8, Uiiar Gangotri, Supeia, Bhiiai, Behind Cantrai Bank, Transport Nagar, Raiour Madras Road Lines, og R) Hathkho}, Bhilai Distt. Burg. 3. National insurance Company Ltd‘ Thmugh Branch Manager, Branch omce, Kamtee Linex Rajnandgaon {c.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MUE‘QR VEHICLE ACT‘ 1988 Present : ' $hri V.K. $harma, warned counse$ forthe appeilants. None for re5pondent No.1 though served. Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No2. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned oounsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (lam septamber, zonal The following order of the Court wae passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: This ls claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short, ‘ihe Tribunal’) vide award dated i7ri 1 .2007, passed in Claim Case No.163/2007. 2) Ae against the compensation of Rs.30,00,0DO/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parente and sisters of deceased Rakesh Kumar Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 0107,2005 the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.i,32,0CIO/- as compensation along‘with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 3) Shri V.K. 8hé;ma, ieamed counsef for the appenants submitted that fhe Tribuna¥ hag erred fn not accepting the claimants’ evidence abom the income of fhe deceased and in aeseeeing his income ai Rs.800/~ per month; in deducting RSSOOL per month towards the personai expenses of the deceased; and in awarding low compensation of R31 ,32,GDO/- only, 4) $hri Ra} Awasihi; learned counsel for respondent No.3 ihe Naiionai inswance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the ciaimante couid not estabiish the income of the deceased as pieaded by them, the compensation of R31 ,32SOOO/- awarded by the Tribunai iejuet and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present oeee. 5) Smt. Meera Jaiewai, iearned counsel for respondent No.2 EShyem Lai Sahu; the owner of the offending vehicie eiso supported the award 6) Ae the respondents have not tiied any appeal egainet the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunai that deceased Rakesh Kumar Sahu died on account of the injuries eustained by him in the . motor accident on 07.07.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Truck, and the insurer oi the offending vehicle Truck was iiable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained nnaiity. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 4 7) True, the cfaimarifrs pleaded that deceased Rakesh Kumar $ahu used to earn Rs.1,5DG/- per month aa salary and Rs.100/- per day as daily aHowance, the evidence Jed in that beha!f was not of minohmg nature. The stand taken by the empioyer of the deceased created serious doubt about the income of the deceased being to the extent as pteaded by them. We, therefore, d0 not hnd any fault tn the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ctaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. e) Neverthetees, the income of the deceased asseesed by the Tribunal at Re.800/— per month is certainty on the lower side and requiree reconsideration. 9) The Tribunal while discarding the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second $cheduie under Section t 63—A of the Motor Vehicies Act. 10) Notional income of Rst5IOOO/i was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year ’19Q4. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Rakesh Kumar Sahu iost his iite took piace in the year 2005. ii) v Section i63~A of the Act where—under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as foiiows : “(163 A, 3peciai provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formuia basis -- (i) 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 oi the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicie, compensation, as indicated in the Second Scheduie, to the iegai heirs or the victim, as the caee may be. Expianation —- For the purposes of this Sub- Section, “permanent disability’ shaii have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) in any ciaim for compensation under Sub-Section (1), the claimant shaii not be required to plead or estabiish that the death or permanent disabiement in respect of which the oiaim has been made was due to any wrongfui act or negieot or defauit of the owner of the vehicie or vehicies concerned or of any other person. (3) The Centrai Government may, keeping in view the cost of iiving by notification in the Officiai Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Scheduie.” 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 the cost of living. 13) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-Section (3) of Gection 163-A of the Act, the Courts / Tribunal can take judicial notice of increase in the prices of essentiai commodities and the cost of living during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. p, V 14) Now, reverting t§ the present case, the accident wherein deceased Rakesh Kumar Sahu (0st his (ife took piace in the year 2005. W the increase in the prices of the essentiaf commodities and the cost of Hving during the period beiwecn the year 1994 and the year 2005, are taken into consideration, the notionai income of Rs.15,000/— prescribed in the $econd Scheduie in the year 1994 wouici 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, i5) Considering that deceaeed Rakesh Kumar Sahu was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage, his contribution to the parents and sisters wouid have been reduced eobstentiaiiy, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rsr36,000/e towards the pereonai expenses of the deceaeeci. The oiaimante’ dependency, theretore, is aseeesed at Rat 8,000/- per annum. 16) As the cieimants are parente and eietere of the deceased; we are of the opinion that muitipiier oi 10 wouid be appropriate in the present case in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the oaee of Munioipat Corporation of Cheater Etomhay Vs. Laxman iyer & another, reported in (2W3) n SCC 7M, wherein it hae been heici that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the y deceased, the muitipiier shouid never exceed 10. 17) By muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.i8,00G/— with the muitipiier of 10., the compensation works out to Ret t80,000/—. The claimants are further entitied to receive Rs.5,000/- towards itinerai expenses and Re.5,0GG/~ towards ices of estate. The m ciaimants, thus, become emitted t0 receive a totat sum of R31 ,90,000/— as compenésation far the death of deceased Rakesh Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. 18) Learned counsei for the parties submitted that with a View to avoid any pessime dispute between the parties about the pertod for which the claimants are entttted to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensatiori, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this; appeal itseif. 19) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Rakesh Kumer 8ahu iost hie iife took piece in the year 2005; the ciaimants filed the ciaim petition in the year 2005; the impugned award wee paesed by the Tribunai in the year 2007; the present appeai for enhancement of the compensation was filed by the appellants in the year 2008; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the reievant 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 blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantity the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.58,000/~ at Rs.5,000/—. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the eppeai tiled by the appeilants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation ie aiiowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,32,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rsfl,90,000/- with further quantified “Ia amount of interest of Rs.5.000/~ on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.58,000/—. 21) Respondent No.8 the National Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months’ time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.68,000/- (Rsr58,QOO/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/— towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.58,000/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 22) No order a3 to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Sdl- Judge Chief Justice