.PJ ^- • -^^ '.; OF AT : • 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.. Smt Johatari Bai widow of Shri Nandkumar @ Bhanu Ram Sahu, about 38 years Ku yohni, D/o Late Shri Nandkumar @ Bhanu Ram Sahu, about 15 years Birbai Son of Late Shri Nandkumar @ Bhanu Ram Sahu, about 17 years Smt Prem Bai Vv'ife of Shri Heeraial Sahu, aged about 61 years Heera!a! Son of Bhaiyaiai Sahu, sged about 63 years; The appeEiant No.2 and 3 are Minors, through thelr natural guardian Mother Smt Johatari Bai of Late Shri Nandkumar @ Bhanu Ram Sahu All of Viliage Korra, Post Karegaon, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsli and District Dhamtari (CG) Son of Shri Joharial Nagesh, Aged about 26 years, Resident of Village Chamenda, Police Station Slhawa, Tahsil Nagri, Djstrict Dhamtan (CG) Alok SinEia Son of Shri Bhuwan Lal Sinha, Resident of Viilage Nagri, Tahsi! Nagri, Poiice Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari (CG) 3. The Orientai Insurance Company Limjted, Through : The Branch Manager / Branch Office, Near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Behind of Amar Talkies, Main Road Dhamtari District Dhamtari (CG) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECT10NA73 QF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri SP Sahu, counsel fortheappellants. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patel, counse! for respondent No.3 ORDER (5th November, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: This is claimants' appeal ,for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional IVIotor Acc'idents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, (fbr short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.12.2006, passed in Claim CaseNo. 180/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- daimed by the appeiiants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Nandkumar @ Bhanu Ram Sahu by filing a daim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehides Act (for short,'the Act'), for his death in the motor accident on 25.07.2006, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensati^n aiong with interest @ 6% per anrium from the date ofthe filing oft^edaim petitiontilt the date ofactuaj payment. 1 3) Shri SP S'ahu, learned counsel for the appelfants submitted that thej'nbynal has erred in not accepting the claimants'evidence ^ C9 about the income ofthe deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower muitiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- only. 4) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS patei, tearned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the daimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them,the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 5) Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Aiok Sinha, the owner of the offending vehiclealso supported the award. 6) As the respondents have not filed any appealagainst the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunat that deceased Nandkumar @ Bhanu Ram Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 25.07.2006; the accident occurred dueto rashand negiigent dnving ofthe driver of the offending vehide jeep; and as the offending vehicle jeep on the date ofthe accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to theclaimants, have now attained finality. That H "• apart, these vfindjngs are not under challenge before us in this "\ : • ..'. • • • • - '. • •• ' :. . . '. ; appeal. We, th^refore, affirm the above findings recorded by the TribunaL Q) 7) in a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to beawarded by the Courts fTribunals should be just and propercompensation in thefactsand circumstancesof the case. !t should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. ^ 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the factsand circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Nandkumar @ BhanuRamSahu used to earn Rs.120/- per day as Welder, but the evidence Eed in thatbehalf was not of ctinching nature. We, therefore, do not findany fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in discarding the ctaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15.000/- per annum in the year 2006 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Nandkumar @ Bhanu Ram Sahu iost his tife took place in the year2006. 12) Section' 163^-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule ^- "• was introduced inthe year 1994 reads as follows: "[163^. Special provisibns as to payment of compe'nsation onstructured Tormula basis - [1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this ct or in anv other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner Qf the motor vehicle or the authorized insurershall 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, tothe legal heirs or the victim, asthe case may be. Explanation — For the purposes of this Sub- Section, "permanent disabiiity" 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 'shal! not' be required to plead or estabiish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due toany wrongfui act or neglect or defauit 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 tbe 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 Scheduie from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 14) As the Ct^ntral Government has faiied in amending the Second Schedul^as provided in Sub-Section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act, the Coyfts / Tribunal can take judicial notice of increase in the prices of essential commoditjesand the cost of living during '•\.-. the period between the introduction ofthe Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 15) Now, reverting to the present case, the accident wherein deceased Nandkumar @ BhanuRam Sahu lost his life took place in the year 2006. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodjties and the cost of tiving during the period between the year 1994 andthe year 2006, 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/- per annum in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the i compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- perannum. 16) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 17) - Considering the age of the deceased, his widow, their minor children and the parents pf the deceased, we are of the 'opinion that multiplier of 14wouldbe appropriate in the present case. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 14, the compensation works out to Rs.3,36,000/-. The daimants are further entitled to recelve Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expens^s; Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow; ^- "'. and Rs.5,000^ for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receiv^a tptal sum of Rs.3,51,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Nandkumar @ Bhanu RamSahu in the motor accident. ?w l 19) Learned counsel for the parties submjtted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties 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) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Nandkumar @ Bhanu Ram Sahu lost his life took place in the year 2006; the claim petition was fited by the claimants in the year 2006; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2006; the present appealwas filed by the appeilants/ ctaimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2007; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering aii the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Com'Dany alone is not to be blamed for the entire deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,81,000/-at Rs.18,000/-. 21) For the , foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation is atlowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is ^nhanced to Rs.3,51,000/- with further quantified t^- ^' 't . . • ' amount of intferest of Rs.18,000/- on the enhanced amount of \ compensation of i^s.t,81,000/-. '^ '-^ 22) Respondent No.3 the Oriental tnsurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of ^^ Rs.1,99,000/- (Rs.1,81,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.18,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,81,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. - Sd/- ChiefJustice ^adma Sd/- RN. chandrakar Judge l>_——— —' 1 • ••'• t: I .'<\' '\ lill