•^•. Claimants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVlSIONBENeH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HO BLE SHRISUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. ftppeal No. 346of2003 1. Rajiv Kumar, S/o. Krishna Kumar aged aboyt39yrs., 2. Kaustbha Richariya, S/o Rajiy Kumar aged aboiit 10 years Appiieant no.2 represented by legal guardian father Rajive Kumar, BothR/o. 18/890, New Shanti Nagar, distrie{Rajpur(C.G.) , Non-Appiicants ^: '3liiil 'l^lfr-tiJ.i Versus 1. i^licharan @ Kali Yadav; S/o. Nunu Yadav pccupation Truck Driver, R/o RaRsha Road Carrier, Btaanpri, Raipur 2, ' Triloehan Maithi S/o. J, Maithi, Truck (^ner ^ Raksha Road Carrier, Bhanpri, Raipur (C.G.) 3 The New india Insurance Co. Ltd., through Dtvisional IVIanager, Divisiona! Officer, Kutohheri Chowk, Jail Road, RaipUF(C.G.) Miscellaneous apBeal under Seetion 173 of the {ViotorVehicjes Act • Present: Shri A.L. Singraul, tearned cpunsel forthe appellants. None fbrrespOBdents No. 1 & 2. Shri Vinay Pandey and Shri Shailendra Sharma, leamedGOunselforrespSndentNQ.S.,- ORDER August,2010) f^^^i'l^^^^'^^iJIN!i^^^£S:^^^^^^^^feS^i;i&^K%;i"t^:?£.a£^t^t;!!:S^^^*^^%@ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is Gtaimdnts' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.01.2003, passed in claim case No.14/2000. 2) Asagainst the compensation ofRs.40,00,000/-claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor son of deceased Madhuri RiGhariya by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motbr accident on 24.04.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sumof Rs.1,67,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date offiling oftheclaim petitiontitl the date of actyal payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Madhuri Rtehariya died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 24.04.2000; theaccidentoccurredduetorashandnegligentdrivingofthedriver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. WB-03/0812; as the offending vehiele Truck on the date of the accident was insured 'with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay eompensation to the claimants. 4) A& the respQndents have not fited anv / ' -^1&^? • • • " / ^"1 • .'; • . ' • . . "' • • ' • ::• • ..' •: -• -• •..•''.••••.' J appeal against the award, the above finciinas recorded bv the Tribuna 'attainedfinality. ; s]:. '.i@ :i;:Siatlitii];^,;^.l;::!^^!Lt^l^^^iji^];ij^(; have now ^^SSBS3?;'lss:?^^'^^:;?:^£ty^.:;^ 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deeeased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplyingthe annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked outto Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.1,67,000/- ascompensation to tHe claimants for the death of deceased Madhuri Richariya in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amountofcompensationofRs.1,67,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) Shri A.L. Singraul, Tearned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the ineome of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- only. 7) Shri Vinay Pandey and Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insuranee Company Limlted on the other hand supported the award -and contended that thecompensation ofjfe.1,67,000/- awarded |by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and |circumstances of the presentcase. . 8) °~ln amotor accidentclaim Gase, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just E3'Sli: w"s ilii.jUt W— •siseq einiuiioi painpn.iis uo uOiiBsuaauioo ps yjaiu^ed ot| se suojsiftcud jeiaads •vsgtl.. : SMO||cy sespesjfrgei.^esAsqtuipsonpQJiuiseM 8|npsL|OS puooss syi J8pun-9J84AJ\ pv sqi jo V-S91- uoi(38g tel, •uonBjsipisuoosj ssjinbsj pue spis jeMo| SLJI yo /iiuiepeo |Si iovs8|oiq3A JOIOOT 341 p V-£9l yprpss jspun einpayog puooss eift ui psquossjd eiuoau! JEUOJIOU SLJ} jo siseq syi uo QOOZ -ies4 syi 01 Lunuue jsd -/000'91'sy ie ieunqui eillAqpssssssepesesosp 34110 suiooui ayi 'sss|8L|y9Aa|si (1,1, 'psseeoap 84} jo suiooui 8t|t tnoqs siuBLUieio ay) jo eouspiAS 34) pspjeosip AltLjBu seq (eunqui 341 iei)i psiisites eje SM ZAAV jo souepiAe eqt jo lesnjsd e uo 'isied 'X'V ZMV S! leunqui sqi sjo.isq siueiuieio SL[I Aq psuiuuexs ssau^rt eL|^ SBSJSLIM 'eyeied •x'v auios Aq Jsded uie|d e uo penssi uesq BAeq 01 svodjnd Lliuouu jsd -/OOO'S'sy 10 luspo aqi 01 pesesoBp sqt p su.iooui sqi euiiisiiqeiss joj SIUBUUIBIO 3i|i Aq psonpojd sieoui.iJsosiil 'sjn^eu Buiqouiio jo pu sem^ieyaq i.B4}ui p9| souspiAe siflinq 'jo}Bjedo jeinduuQO se q(uou jsd -/OOQ'S'sy UJBS o} pssn eAyBtisjy ynypeiAi paseeosp ieiji pspesid stueuiielo eq} 'smi (os. •eseo lussejd aytjo ssoueisainojio pue spej syt ujuoitesusduioo jsdojd pue isnf si |eunqui st)i Aq pspjeMe -/OOO'ZO'l-'sy p uonesueduoo sqi jsiitsyM 01 se auiuuexe ||Bt)s s MON (s •ezueuog e jou 'uoiiesuaduioo p lunouue JsBeauu e sq jeLiiisy pjnoiis u 'sseo 3i)l p ssoueisuinojio pue spej syi ui. uonBsusduuoo jedojd pue IIiiRfflll Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time beina in force or instrument havina the force of law; the owner of the motor vehicte or the authorised insurer shall be liable fo payjnthecaseQf death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedute, tothe legal heirs orthe victim; as the case may be. Explanation - For'ttie purposes of this sub-sectton, "permanent disabiljty" shall haye the^same meanjng and exterit as ih theWoFkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub- seetion(1), thectaimant shall not be required to pleador establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the elaim has been made was due to any wrongful actor neglect ordefault ofthe owner of the yehicte or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the Gost of living by notlfication 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 Qovernment to amend the' Second Schedule from timetotime Keeping in viewthecost oflh/ing. 14) .As the Central Government has failed. in amending the Secorid Seheduie as^rovided in Sub-section (3) of Seetion 163-A ofthe Act, the Courts/ Tribunal can take judicial notice bf increase in the prjces of essential eommodities. and the cost of living during ^a . • .- .-. .•.-; : ' . . ". ' the perioa between the introduction of the Second Sehedule in the year 1994 andthedateofaccidentinthegivencase. ^^%:^. y f^. '%. '% i9. . """"^j j 15) Now reverting to the presentcase, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Madhuri Richariya lost her tife took place in the year 2000. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the eost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2000 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.30,000/- in the year 2000. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that the claimants are husband and son of the deceased and the husband himself was having his own independent income, we are of ttie opinionthat deduction of 50% ofthe income 6f the deGeased would be appropnate in the present case. By deducting 50% of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.15,000/- perannum. 17) Considering the ageofthe deceased and her husband, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 14, the compensation worksout to Rs.2,10,000/-. The claimants^ are further entitled to receive Rs.5,OQQ/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of censortium to the widow; and Rs.5,00&(- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled :!!11! I^IWt ?1:; .fB"" lt-"tlt'i?h-fl' 3&- tssjayji p tunoLue p9U!)uenb spjEAAO} -/QOO'Z'sy •i-iuoi)es|<©dujoo jo tunouue psoueque sp^BMOi -/ooO'SS'sy) -/000'99'SU p uins |epi 3iji SuilisodSp jcy SLU!} ,SLJIUOLU asjq) psiuejBsii pStiLun *>..•' . ' . . • • . •' AuedLuoo souBjnsui eipu) MSN 941 S'ON }U3puodsey feg •-/000'99'sy p uoHesusdtuoo Jo }unoiue psouBtiue 341 uo -/ooo'l'sy P }S8j3}U! p lunouje peyituenb jeifynj MIJM -/OOO'QZ'Z'sy oi psoueijus si leunqiji sqi Aq pepjeMB -/OQO'ZQ'l.'sy jo uoiiesusdLuoo aqi 'yed ui p9 o||e siuoiiesuedujooaiiipiueLUaouBqus jo^ stueLuieio /siue||9dde34i Aq p3|y lesdde 34} 'SUOSEBJ BuioBajo.) SL)} joj (|.z '-/OOO'Z'sy -/OOO'SS'sy ^o uoiiesusduuoojo }unoiue psoueijue sqi uo isejeiui jo lunoLue s^ ^uerto aw. 'JSBELU 941 ui Aeisp ejiiua e^JOj peiueiq eq onou s; euoie Auediuoo aouejnsui eqiieqt }OB; aq) pue [Bsdde luessjd 341 pue uoi^ed uiieio SLJUO lesodsip ui Ae|ep aq) Buipnioui sjopei }UBA9|SJ sy) ||B Buuspisuoo (oz 'KSS}\ leadde 314} ui peyiiuenb aq AELU uoiiesuedtuoo p tunoaie P90UEL|U9 S41 UO ].S8J8}U! ^O tunouue syi 'uoitEsuBdiuoo jo lunoiue psoueyua SLIIUO tS9J9)U! eAisosj G) peiutua SJBSIUBLUIEIO si(t 4014^ jo^ poued syiinoqe ssiyed syi useMisq etndsip 8|qi9sod Aue pioAE 0} M9iA e iffl IBI|) payiiuqns ssiijed aqt JQJ |8Sunoo peujee-i (s i. •lusppoe JQtouj sqiui eAueyoiy ynqpei^j pasesosp p qiesp eqi jo^ uojtesuedLuoosB -/ODO'SS'Z'sy JO i-uns \BW IB eAieosj p} •<( ^••^ K\ w^ /•/ &>.-t.^"' .^S' ^ '''4 gfc .^ on the enhanced amount ofcompensation of Rs.58,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. subbu 23) Noorder as to costs. Sd/- \. Chief Justicei^ \. Sd/- , '". i!KuBiar Sinha Judge )ll»l]l1 "^^K^1^^1fl!^®1?