^,^^'%-%, '^ 1%1A-1;.? 1 7-""-"% | "^. ^,.. .../'' /^ 'r?^€^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 697 of 2010 1. Smt. Kumari Markhande wd/o late Gajadhar Markhande, aged about 37 years, 2. Raju Markhande, s/o late Gajadhar Markhande, aged about 17 years, 3. Ku. Bindiya Markhande, d/o late Gajadhar Markhande, aged about 16 years, 4. Ku. Babita Markhande, d/o late Gajadhar Markhande, aged about 13 years, Appellant No. 2 to 4 are minors through natural guardian mother appellantno.1. 5. Guha Ram Markhande, s/o late Dayaram Markhande, aged about 68 years, 6. Smt. Laxmi Bai Markhande w/o Guharam Markhande, aged about 63 years, All are r/o Vill. Kugda, P.0. Urla (B.M.Y.) P.S. Kumhari, tahsil Patan, distt. Durg, C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants Doman Das s/o Laldas Manikpuri, aged about 25 years, r/o vill. Ameri, P.0. Jamgaon (M), P.S. Bhilai-3, (Purani Bhilai), tahsil Patan distt. Durg C.G. (Driver) Avinash Pandey, s/o R.M. Pandey, aged about not mentioned, r/o CCI ^'as^ /^:^ "%, ii " ^; MAC.No. 697 of 2010 ^: ^: Colony, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mandhar, Raipur, P.S. Dharsiva, Chowki - Vidhansabha, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. (Owner) 3 The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, tahsil & distt. Raipur C.G. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri H.P. Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Praveen Durandhar, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ;th (05InAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.07.2009, passed in Claim Case No.32/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.37,36,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children, and parents of deceased Gajadhar Markhande, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 28.01.2008 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.01.2008, the Tribunal awardeda total sum of Rs.3,55,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per ->^ ^^;-. MAC.No. 697 of 2010 (^^ .v'-\ ^:v- 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 deceased Gajadhar Markhande died on 28.01.2008 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.01.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing registration Nos. C.G.-07M-0298; as the above offending vehicle Toyota Qualis on the date of the accident was insured with the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breacfi of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the cla.imants. 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.30,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,20,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.35,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,55,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Gajadhar Markhande in the motor accident. The Tribunal further MAC.No. 697 of 2010 ^. ^•\. IC" directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,55,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri H.P. Agrawal, 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.30,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,55,500/- only. 7) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,55,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Praveen Durandhar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Doman Das, the driver of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis, also supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Gajadhar Markhande used to earn Rs.10,500/- per month as remuneration of a Corporator and from agriculture, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. Considering that the remuneration which the deceased was receiving as Corporator was not his regular income and the agricultural land in fact v stood recorded in the name of his parents, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in .,.^;—;t^'<, /y ^^^ "% '"'"•'.. '"^••'^ \ %^J"/ MAC.No. 697 of 2010 ^) discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- per annum in the year 2008 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the incpme of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule underSection 163-Aofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 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(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 M.A.C.No. 697 of 2010 ^) 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 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 in which deceased Gajadhar Markhande lost his life took place in the year 2008. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2008 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would come to atleast Rs.36,000/- in the year 2008. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that the claimants include the widow and three minor children of the deceased, we deem it proper to deduct only Rs.10,000/- per annum towards the personal expenses of the MAC.No. 697 of 2010 deceased and the claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.26,000/- per annum. 17) Considering that deceased Gajadhar Markhande was shown to be 38 years of age in his postmortem report, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 15 is prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.26,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.3,90,000/-.By adding further sum of Rs.25,500/- under other heads including medical expenses, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.4,15,500/- as compensation for the death of deceased Gajadhar Markhande in the motor accident. 19) 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 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, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. MAC.No. 697 of 2010 €>. nlmmj 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in pari:. The compensation of Rs.3,55.500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,15,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 22) Respondent No.3 the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.66,000/- (Rs.60,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge m