-4. P. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Driver Owner Insurer Misc. Appeal (C) No. 571 of2009 Smt. Darash Bai, aged about 48 years, w/o late Ramadhar r/o Manjhoutpara, Janjgir, tah. & distt. Janjgir C.G. VERSUS 1 Shankar Ram Yadav s/o Shree Dhar Yadav age about 38 years, r/o Dugdugia Para, Kunkuri, thana Kunkuri, distt. Jashpur C.G. 2 Parmindar Singh Paliya s/o Bishn Singh Paliya r/o G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. 3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Divisional Office, front of Maharshi Vidya Mandir, distt. Korba, C.G. Memoofapeeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Yogesh Chandra, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (26tnSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. r i @Ss^ •^^ -..^ MAC.No. 571 of 2009 The unfortunate mother of deceased Sushil Kumar is the sole appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, district Korba, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.03.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 102/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.40,05,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate mother of deceased Sushil Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,50,0007- as compensation along with interest @ 7% 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 claimant's son Sushil Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.07.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-04/T-9335; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the poticy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. MAC.No. 571 of 2009 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/-per annum. By deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,0007- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her son Sushil Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,0007- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.30,000/- per annum only; in deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- only. 7) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by '-•x^. MAC.No. 571 of 2009 "^ o the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,50,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimant pleaded that her son Sushil Kumar, used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month by working in a private concern and also by selling newspaper, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.7,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income ofthedeceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- per annum in the year 2004 is somewhat on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) The Tribunal while discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. MAC.No. 571 of 2009 13) 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(1), 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 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." 14) 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. 15) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) ofSection 163-A 8 \ & ^SS^ g^ \. ^€/ '^BaA^' 6 MAC.No. 571 of 2009 of the Act, the Courts/ Tribunal can take judicial notice of increase in the prices ofessential 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. 16) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimant's son Sushil Kumar lost his life took place in the year 2004. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2004 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/- in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 17) Considering that deceased Sushil Kumar on the date of the accident was unmarried, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards his personal expenses in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimant's dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/—towardsthe personal expenses of the deceased. 18) As the claimant is mother of the deceased, in our opinion, multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case in view MAC.No. 571 of 2009 of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 19) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,90,0007- as compensation for the death of her son Sushil Kumar in the motor accident. 20) The claimant is further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/-. 22) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rs.40,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest s'::y^s MAC.No. 571 of 2009 on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge .f: j,