WSiSOsSSSSSsSSS fswa -4.F.^ c^^>- Q'^D^ HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT^ILASPUR r^t Claimants 1 Arun Kumar Singh, S/Q S'nri Hari Singh, aged about 43 years 2 Smt Pushpa Devi, W/o Shri Arun Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years Both are r/o Kabadi Patti Naya Bazar, Dhanbad, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Gulam Mohammed @ Nawab S/o Habib Mohammed, aged about 25 years, R/o Moudhapara, Near House of Akbar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) Mohammed Shahabuddin s/o Mohammed Suman, aged about 21 years, r/o Vidyanagar, near Police Line, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited, Raipur (CG) Shri MK Bhaduri, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Qamrul Aziz and Shri GVK Rao, counsel for respondent No.3. i AC.No. 52 of 2010 >rd The following order of the Court was passed by Thfe is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated '.11.2009,passed in CIaim Case No.4/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.25,50,000,/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants unfortunate parents of deceased Rahul by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.11.2003, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation atong with interest @ 6% per 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 claimants' son Rahul aged about 16 years died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.11.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-04/ZC/3809; .as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident, was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not estabiish any breach of the policy conditions, the tnsurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. A.C. No. 52 ot 2010 H 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attainedfinality. 5) The Tribunai considering the fact that deceased Rahul was aged about 15-16 years on the date of the accident; he was a student of 11 standard; and the age of the claimants, awarded lump-sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Rahul in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri MK Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribuna! has erred in not assessing the compensation payable to the ciaimants according to the prescribed manner of first assessing the income/notional income c deceased; the claimants' dependency; and then multiplyin ciaimants' dependency with the appropriate multiplier; awarding lump-sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only as compensation claimants. the in the 7) Shri Qamrul Aziz and Shri GVK Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limitsd, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that as deceased Rahulwas not having any independent income of his own, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper _cqmpensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. '& \ .^fssasf ^;s-^\ ^.,...J// w'ssf-- _4- ^•^.- " ...^ l.A.C.No.52 of 2010 ^z 8) The Tribunal certainly has erred in not assessing the compensation payable to the claimants in accordance with the prescribed manner of assessing first the income of the deceased then the claimants' dependency; and by multiplying the claimants' dependency with the appropriate multiplier; and in awarding lump-sum compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Rahul in the motor accident. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation payable to the claimants afresh in the prescribed manner. 9) Claimants' son deceased Rahul was aged about 15-16 years on the date of the accident. He was a student of 11 standard. The claimants neither pleaded nor proved any independent income of the deceased on the date of the accident. As such, the income of the deceased on the date of the accident is to be assessed on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10) Section 163 - A of the Act where-under the Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows of compensation on structured formula basis - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Aot or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of !aw, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shali be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicte, compensation, as indicated in the •'^MS^. .A.C.No.52 of 2010 /':' -. SE'N 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 theWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under Sub - Section (1), the ctaimant 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 nealect or defautt 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 the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 11) The above quoted Sub - Section (3) of Section 163 - A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second Schedute from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 12) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub - Section (3) of Section 163 - A of the Act, the Courts / Tribunal can take judicia! notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of liv-ing during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 13) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein claimants' son deceased Rahul lost his life took place in Bl1: fe^ •=i=i-SE?!^KBI=BI!ss •:.-:^' ,,,:..*—.,s ,..;-%\ ••^ 6 M.A.C. No. 52 of 2010 the year 2003. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1 994 to the year 2003 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act would come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose to assess the compensation payable to the claimants by taking the notional ihcome of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. As deceased Rahul on the date of the accident was unmarried and the claimants are his parents, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and iaria Verma (Smf) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 . The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. .15) As the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in {21 •CC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiptier should never ^exceed 10. '• .''-'-^I'-gl^..) 7 MAC.Na. 52 of 2010 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of estate. The claimants, thus become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Rahu! in the motor accident. 17) The claimants are further awarded Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensatlon is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the New India 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. 20) No order as to costs. -- Sd/- Chief Justice I) \- Sd7- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma M