~^^ © HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ.& HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal 10 No. 1403 of 2008 1. Rameshwar, aged 45 years, son of Tijuram Dhiwar, 2. Smt. Janki Bai, aged 40 years, wife of Rameshwar. Both are residents ofvillage Loharsi, P.S. Shivrinarayan, district Janjgir Champa C.G. VERSUS Respondents Shital Kumar, aged 24years, son of Shri Babulal Bharti, resident of village Hasuwa, police station and tahsil Kasdol, district Raipur C.G. (Driver) Shivshankar Sahu, aged 38 years, son of Shri Dhaneshwar Sahu, resident of village Hasuwa, P.S. and tehsil Kasdol, district RaipurC.G. (Owner) 3. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Bilaspur, district Bilaspur C.G. (Insurer) Aooeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (04tnJuly,2011) /'^ ^i ^JI ^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Dularwa are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.06.2008, passed in Claim Case No.5/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 12,43,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Dularwa, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 15.12.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimants' son Dularwa died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.12.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos. C.G.-04D/2264 and C.G.-04D/2589, respectively; as the above offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley on the date of the accident was insured with the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard 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. ^^;...> © ^ 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 1/3rct 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 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Dularwa in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Somnath Verma, 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/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- only. 7) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for respondent No.3, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand, ,-^, ^^ ^cy '^^^^ ^ supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the Tribunalis 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 compehsationof Rs. 1,77,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Dularwa used to earn Rs.200/- per day as Mason, the evidence led in that behalf was highly discrepant. The claimants' witness Shiv Nandan on the one hand stated that deceased Dularwa used to earn Rs.120/- per day, whereas the evidence of AW3 Iswar Prasad was to the effect that deceased Dularwa was getting Rs.130/- per day. The father of the deceased, AW1 Rameshwar, on the other hand stated that his son Dularwa was earning Rs.150/- per day. In this state of highly discrepant evidence about the income of the deceased, we 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.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional ^&'^' ^ income in the year 2007 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 : "[163A. 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 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(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." 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. .:\ ^i. 14) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) ofSection 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 in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 15) Now revertingto the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimants' son Dularwa lost his life took place in the year 2007. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1 994 and the year2007 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.36,000/- in the year 2007. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that deceased Dularwa on the date of the accident, was unmarried 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 dicta of the ApexCourt 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 SCC121. 17) The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 18,0007- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 18) Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 10 in 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 neverexceed 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 their son Dularwa in the motor accident. 20) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.13,000/-. 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.1,77,000/- 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.13,000/-. @ subbu 22) Respondent No.3 I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.13,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.13,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge