•y RAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& 'BLE SHRi RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Ctaimants 1$ Rarheen Bai, W/o. Kadaru Gadaru Sahu, aged about 54 years. 2) 3) Vadhiarin Bai, D/o. Gadaru aged about 40 years. Samwati, D/o. Gadaru Sahu, 38years. | Ail R/o. Vill: & P.0. Seoni, P. Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur(CG). | s. Non-Applicants. 1) Gopa! @ Nohar Lal, S/o. Ra|mu Sonkar, R/o. P.0. Arang, Dist. Rajpur. 2$. Dhanesh Ram Tandon, S/o. Somnath Tandon, R/o. Mahamayapara, behind Dena Bank, Aarang, Dist. Raipur(CG). 3). The Oriental Insurance Co. Ud., through Divisional Mana^dr, Divisional Office, Jail Road, Rai|)|jr (CG). - : L Present : Shri S.C. Verma and Shri Aditya Khare, counsel the appeilants. ^ '• Ms. SunitaJaih, counsel for respondents N0.1&21 Shri Abhishek Sinha and,ShriG:.S. Pate!,coufiss respondentNojS..^.,1' . ': T :':"' !1- tor .f :!:. '"- l;t ssaK^. .yif^ifc' m^ .,4 rd ! *°''' s:wf The following order of the Court was passed by The appellants/ claimants are seeking enhancement of;the compensation awarded by 4 Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 18.02.2003, passed in ciaim case No.33/2002.' 2. As against the compensation of Rs.6,45,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and married daughters of deceased Kadaru @ Gadaru Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 17.01.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/-:as compensation along with interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua! payment. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence before it held that deceased Kadaru @ Gadaru Sahu died on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accid^nton 17.01,2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of theoffending vehicle Jeep; and as; offending vehicle Jeep on the date of'the accident was in^ured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the lnsu|rsnce Companywas !iable to pay compensation to the cialmants. j ^3__L 9% led th< II I!. r 4. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the. above findings recorded by the Tribunal have novif 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 Vehictes Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimaiits' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimants for fhe death of deceased Kadaru Gadaru Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of fiiing ofthe claim petition till the dateofactual payment. 6. Shri SC Verma and Shri Aditya Khare, learned counsel >r the appe!lants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evkience about the income of the deceased andin assessing hisincome at Rs.15,000/- per anhiim only; in selecting the lower muttiplier of 5; in not awarding! ^ny sum underother heads; and in awarding low compensatiohlbf Rs.50,000/-only. : I'j Itlff^ '^y^ --^s^ € ^- 1 II '•« 7. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Kadaru Gadaru Sahu used to earn Rs.50,000/- per annum from agriculture, no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to establish the extent of agricultural land in the possession and cultivation of the deceased. !n this state of evidence, we do not find anyfault in the approach of the Tribunal in discardina the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 8. Nevertheless, the income ofthe deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum is certainly on the iower side and requrres reconsideration. 9. Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows: 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 She 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 victlm, as the case may be. Explanation - For the purposes of thissub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workrrien's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any ciaim for compensation under sub- section(1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or -L-41.-. 4» establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the ciaim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or defauitof the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other (3) The Central Government may, keepingin view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazstte, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 10. The above quoted Sub- section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act mandated the Centrat Government to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 11. As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Scheduie as provided in Sub-seetlon (3) ofSection 163-A ofthe Act, the Courts/' Tribunal ean takejudicial notice of increase; in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living duringi the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule ini the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 12. Now reverting to the present case,the accident wherein' deceased Kadaru @ GadaruSahu lost his life took piaee in the year 2002. ]f the iricrease in ;the prices • of th& essentiat commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the] year 2002 are taken into conslderation, the notional income of| Rs.15,000/- prescrlbed in the Second Scheduie in the year1994|] would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2002. Vrfe,] therefore, propose to compute the compensation taking thej income ofthe deceased at Rs.30,000/- perannum. !4.-4...-ii- " z 13. As claimant No.1 Rarheen Bai, widow ofdeceased Kadaru @ Gadaru Sahu alone was dependent on the income of the deceased, as claimants No.2 and 3 are married daughters iiving with thelr husbands, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per| annum. • 14. Considering that. deceased Kadaru @ Gadaru Sahu was; aged about 62 years on ths date of the accident, muitiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 15. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with] the multiplier of 5, the compensation works out to Rs.75,000/-. i The ciaimants are further entitied to receive a lump-sum amountl of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses; towards ioss ofi consortium to the widow; and for loss of estate. The claimants,! thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.85,000/- as compensation for the death ofdeceased Kadaru @ Gadaru Sahu in the motor accident. 16. 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 or'i the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itseif. ^^- l::r.iff® |ir[ •W4E ^wsrs^ i; ll Subbu ® 17. Considerlng all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal ofthe ciaim petition and the present appeal and the fact that 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.35,000/- at Rs.5,000/-. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeai filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.85,000/- with fuirther quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/-. 19. Respondent No.3 The Orientai Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.35,000/- towards enhanced amount ot compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount ofcompensation of Rs.35,000/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. No order as to costs. sa/- Chief Jusdce Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar 'e ll'l