^^^ ^x F.R. ^p M?@S ^ ^s- EJT.F Msc^ Ap.eeaLt'CJ ,No, rtt AlilflAMTC. Tarni Bal widow of iats Nirmaikar, aged about Caste: Dhobi. nanva Ramesh Nirmal aaec [e< '••~ of iate ibout 09 M Rajesh, son of late Nirmaikar, aged about 11 years. Appellants No. 2 & 3 are (Minor) through their nsturat Guardian Mother, Tarni Bai widow of iate Ramesh NirmaSkar. Al! residents of Rambagh, Tehsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) M.f%M /^\ A .iiiTe- Durgesh @ Dujendra, son of Komal Ram Sahu, aged about 24 years, resident of Chandra Birhi, Police Station Guroor, Post Guroor, Tehsil - Guroor, District r^i i"-" /r^ /"* \ uurg \'v.\3.) 2. Bhaskar igan, son ot irendra Dewangan, aged about' 30 years, resident of Koshtapara Kt^^-A Dhamtari, i! ani District Dhamtari ?C,G.) The New tndia insurance Co. Ltd., Tha ar Bhawan, G.E. Road, Shilal, District Durg (C.G.) Ti 1 S •W"WU BresenL: Shri Sunii Sahu, iearned counsel forthe M-^^.^ ?-s?- ?.*,-~^.-,^.Jl./s,^I.-. M-.. << 6 ^5 s^Uii^ 1^/1 i^s>iJUilue;iis.si^u.i 0; ^, Shri Sudhir Agrav»'al.counsel for respondent No.3. /'£^"!% y •&;"»., l'^a w;w- '1st Ft'-fnhar Tnftl i ^if^p'S.^WCS ; AVi^- The following order of the Court was passed his is ints' as enhancement of tl compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribuna!, Dhamtari (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 18.01.2007, passed in Claim CaseNo.79/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.29,00,000/- claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate vrfidow, and minor children of deceased Ramesh Nirmalkar bv filina a ciaim Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on OS.04.2006. the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation aiong wit'n interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of 3) Shri Sunil Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- only. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counse! for respondent No.3/ New India Insurance Company. Limited, on the other hand, supported the a'A'ard and contended that as the ctaimants couid not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the mpensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just ana' ""^^s- ^^""^ ''ifi /'£. "il '^* ^ -^^WKSS.... ^ !S '!'S?'iSS)iS> g 1 OJ '^ff'-^/' proper compensstion in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findi Ramesh Nirmal him in the motor dings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased kar died on account of the injuries sustained by accident on 09.04.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the orfending vehicle bus; and as the offending vehicie bus on the date of ths accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company /as (iabie to pay compensation Limlted, the Insurance Company to the ciBimants, have novtf atta •F'rrsnaings are not inder challenfle le above findings finality. That apart, thes< sre us in this at lA, therefore, affirm 6) !n a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the .Courts /Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ot the case. 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation 6f Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and cireumstances of the present case. S) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Rsmesh Nirma.ikar used to earn Rs.250/- per day by running shop, the svidence led In that behalf v/as not of ctinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribuna! in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9) Neverthetess, the income of the deceaced assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. )) Section 163 - A of the Act where-under Schedule was introduced in the vear 1994 reads as fQ'l the Second IIOWS : "|1S3 A. Special provisions as to payment of contained in time being in of law, the authorized (1) Notwithstanding anything this Act or in any other law for the force or instrument having the owner of the motor vehicle or insurer shall be iiable 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 lega.1 heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Expianation - 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 ciaim for compensation under Sub-Section (1), the claimant shail 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 default of the owner of the ve'nicle or vehicies concerned or of any other (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of livin.c Official Gazette, from time Second Schedule." ' notiflcation to time am( u- r" 11) The above quoted Sub-Section (3) of Section 163 - A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second sc'nedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 12) As the Centra! 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 judiciai notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of iiving 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 accident in whlch deceased Ramesh Nirmalkar lost his life took piace in the vear 2006. If th.e increase in the prices of the essentiai commodities and the cost of liv'ina between the year 1994 and 2006 are taken into consideration, the notionat income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 14) By deducting the usuai 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the pereonal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 15) Considering that deceased Ramesh Nirmalkar was 36 years of age on the date of the accident,' multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of ind Another reported in (2009) S SCC 121, 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- the multiplier of 15, the compensation works oui to Rs.3,60,000./-. The ciaimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for toss of consortium So the widow and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation for t'ne death of deceased Ramesh Nlrmalkar in the motor accident. 17) 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 entitied to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the smount of interest on the enhanced amount &f compensation may be quantified in this appeal itseif. 18) The unfortunate accident wherein deceased Ramesh Nirmaikar lost his life took place in the year 2006; the ctaim petition was fiied by the ciaimants in the year 2006; the impugned avvard was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2007; the present appeal was fited by the appeHants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2007; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the reievant factors including the delay in disposal ofthe ciaim petition and the present appea! and the fact that the Insurance Company a!one is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- at Rs.20,000/- "eis, padma 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fsled by the appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensatlon is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.20,000/- on the enhanced amount or compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the New india tnsurance Company Llmited Is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.2,15,000/- (Rs.1,95,000/- towards enhanced amount compensation + Rs.20,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced a.mount of compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to cosfs. 1 Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- T.p.Sharma Judge t