Manaiams 2 3 $C§%Mi HQN’BLE $HRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & %G?é’%LE $§=€Ri RANGNAT% CHANERAKAR J. MANG. 53$ Q? 29(35 Sa§na Bai, W10 Late Manahar Gm. aged 40 yea¥s ’Santosh Gm Sic Late Manohar Giri, aged 26 years Jhaniya Bai, d/o Late Manohar Giri aged 18 years Chandra Gm, 5/0 Late Manohar Giri, aged 18 years (Through iegai Guardian Mother Sagna Bai) Dhukia Bai Wig Late Sarju Giri aged 67 years {Mother of the deceasee iate Manehar Giri ail 0f the appeliant resident Srore para Bhiiai 3 Dietrict Durg (CG) Reefeendems wERSU$ Arun Kumar Sahu @ (Guddu) S/o Sakharam Sahu, Caste — Sahu, aged 29 years R/o Tate Line Kohka Bhiiai, Durg & TAhsil Burg (Driver) Sushii Panday S/o’GD Panday R/o MS ’12’582 Hudco Bhiiai, Tahsii & District Durg (CG) (Owner) The New India insurance Campany \Ltd., Paras Bhawan Station Road. Durgx’Besicie Petrol Pump Power House Bhil‘ai, Tahsi! & District-Durg (CG) answer) iiriiso. geneai under Seciion 1??» of Motor Vehicies Aci HIGH COURT QF 6HHATTES$ARH KT BILASPUR E§¥3S§0N EIENCH k} Present : Shri NK Chatterjee, counsei for the appenants'. None for respandents No 1 &2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsei far respondent N03. ¢ v @RDER (4th May, 2m) The fonowing onder of the“ Court was passed by Qggéev Gupta; CH5. This i$ oiaimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Ninih Additiona! Motor Accidents C!aims Tribunal, Durg (for short st‘ne Tribunai’) vide award dated r 27.1 2.2004) passed in ciaim case No.238i2004. 2. The appeHantsI CTaimants, unfortunate widow, children and mether of deceased Manohar Girl, claimed compensation sf Rs.15,00,000I— by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20.94.2903. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Manohar Girl died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.04.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Mini Bus bearing registration No.0GO7 ZA 0143; as‘t’ne offending vehicle Mini Bus, on the date of the accident was insured with the New lndia lnsurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the claimants. FT ” m 4f As the respondents have net fur-ed any appeai against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have“ now atiained finaiity. 5f The Tribunal assessed the income of ihe deceased at R$.15,QQQI— per annum. By dedusiéng 1/3” of Rs.15,000/— ' towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the clatmants’ degendency was as3essed a’t Rs.1@,000l— per annum. By muliipiying the annual dependency cf Rs.10,DOG/- wiin the muiiip3ier of 1'3, the compensation was worked ant to Re.1,3G1000/-. By awarding funher sum of Re.7,QOG/- undes' other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,37,000!— as compensation to the daimants fo¥ the death of deceased Menoher Gin in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rert,3?,OGOI- @ 6% per annum from the date of fiting of the ctaim'petition tit! the date of actuatpeyment, 6. Shri NK Chatterjee, teamed oounset for the appettants s submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ctaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1.5,OOO/— per annum only; and in awarding tow compensation of Rst ,371000f- oniy. 7. Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New lndia lnsurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, \XV the compensation 0f Rs‘1,37,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! i3 jQst and proper compensation in the. facts and circumstances of the present case. 8‘ in a meter accideni ciaim case, what is imponant is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Cows/Tribunals shouid be iusi and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances Of“ the case. it shou’id neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. t Now we ehaii examine ae to whether the compensation of Rs.i,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is gust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Manohar Giri used to earn Rs.4,000!— per month as Contractor in HSCL, no reiiabie evidence was ted to establish the income of the deceased to that extent We; therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence . about the income of the deceased. I 11. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased .aasseseed by the Tribunal at Re.’l5,000/- per annum is certainty 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 foliows : "§183A. Specie! provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formuia basis—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other iaw for the time being in force or instrument having the force of iaw, the owner of the motor vehic!e or the authorised insurer shat! be Habte to pay in the case of death or permanent dieabiement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehiote; compensation, as indicated in the Second Scheduie, 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 , u ahd extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). A2) 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 ciaim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the ownerot 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 Scheduie.” 13. The above quoted Sub— section (3) of Section 163—A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second .i Schedule from time to time keeping in View the cost of living. 14. As the Central Government has faiied in amending the Second Scheduie as provided in Sub—section (3) of Section 163—A of the Act, the Courts/ Tribunai can take iudicial notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living during the period betWeen the introduction of the Second Scheduie in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. sax g7 wk 1 5 Now remng to the present case, the unfortunate accident ‘ ve e G whrein deceased Manohar Giri iost his life took piace in the year 203. if the increase in the prices of the eesential commodities 0 an the cost of iiving between the year 1994 a ihe year 2603 d nd ar taen into consideration, the notional iome of Rs.15,0001— e k nc preortbed in the Second Schedute in» the year 199 wouid s 4 certainty come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2003. We, therefore, proose to recompute the cpensation taking the income of the p om deceased at Rst3E),QOO/- per annum. 16. By deductig the ual 1/3” of Rs.30,000/— towards the n us peonai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency is assessed at Rsi20,00/- per annum. 0 17. The muitipiier of 13 setted by the Tribunai in our opinion is appropriate considerg th ge of the deceased and in View of in e a the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) a Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, nd reported in {20M} 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 13 was prescribed for the age group between 46-50 years. -'- ‘18. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000!- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.2,6G,OOOI-i ' The claimants are further entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,DOO!- towards funeral expenses;\Rs.5,000/— for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/— for toss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/— as rs ec cqmpensation for the death of deceased Manohar Giri in the i motor accident. 19 Learned counsel for the parties oubmitted that with a v§ew tog avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the ciaimants 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. €onsiderin'g all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that insurance Company atone 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.1,38,000l. at R31 3,000/— 21. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeiiantsx' ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is aiiowed in part. The compensation of Rsl1,37,000/— awarded by s the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,75,0001— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.13,000i— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,38,000/-. 22. Respondent No.3 The New lndia insurance Company Limtted is granted three months’ time for depositing the totai sum got Rs.1,51,000f— (Rs.1,38,0DO/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.13,000/- towards quantified amount of i interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of RS1 ,38,Q00/-) before the concerning C!aims Tribunal‘ I23. No order as to costs. » Sdl- ‘ R.N.Chandrakar Judge Sdl- Chief Justice =