-T^. F . ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1132 of2010 Appellants Respondents Madho Prasad s/o Ganga Ram Sahu, aged about 50 years, Smt. Ramkumari w/o Madho Prasad Sahu, aged about 48 years, Both resident of village Banari, P.S. and Tahsil Janjgir, district Janjgir- Champa C.G. VERSUS Purnanand s/o Babulal Suryavanshi aged about 25 years, r/o Banari, P.S. and Tahsil Janjgir, district Janjgir Champa C.G. (Driver) Smt. Shantibai w/o Purshottamlal Sahu, r/o Quarter No.1/H-30, Zone 2, Khurshipar, Bhilai. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Raipur Through Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Raipur district Raipur C.G. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. Present: Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.S. Rajput and Ms. Renu Singh, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (26l"August,2011) 7 te' ..:^ //. ^:.: ,v s-w^, ^. "^ ^^^"^'JJ ^ ^^......^ ^ -^., ' vi%^'?''^" '^•^^^s MACNo.1132 of 2010 2o 1^»^] The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Ku. Shanta Sahu are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.07.2010, passed in Claim Case No.29/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ku. Shanta Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 22.03.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,37,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing 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 claimants' daughter Ku. Shanta Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 22.03.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G.-07C/2297; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General 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. MACNo.1132 of 2010 2 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 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 Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,37,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their daughter Ku. Shanta Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, 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 her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- only. 7) Shri S.S. Rajput and Ms. Renu Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other ^^ '%^ / !i. ^L 'i ^ ';..^:^^^s^ 1 ^ ' ' f? .^ v -^y '^^^^^•l MACNo.1132 of 2010 hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts andcircumstances ofthe present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that their daughter deceased Ku. Shanta Sahu used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by running a beauty parlour and kirana shop, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and her income to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthedeceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal 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 Vehicles Act, in the year 2009 is on the lower side and requires reconsideration. ^^S^!^^^^ ^<^ l^ T:; ^ MACNo.1132 of 2010 2. •^ 1' 12) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : "[163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in thisAct 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 authorised insurer shall 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(l), 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." 13) 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. 14) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) ofSection 163-A a MACNo.1132 of 2010 ^ ^-^rf 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 in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 15) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimants' daughter Ku. Shanta Sahu lost her life took place in the year 2009. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2009 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would atleast come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2009. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) As deceased Ku. Shanta Sahu on the date of the accident, was unmarried and the claimants are her parents, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 17) As the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the case would not be more than 10 in ^ Y' MACNo.1132 of 2010 2-< view of the dictum of the Apex Court 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. 18) 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 their daughter Ku. Shanta Sahu in the motor accident. 19) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal 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 quantified in this appeal itself. 20) Considering all 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.63,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is \\'\ < :;:'"^ MACNo.1132 of 2010 ^ allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/-. 22) Respondent No.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.63,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Jusdce Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu I