;^^ 11^'y Vx& ^s ^.T^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Respondents Misc. Appeal (0 No. 165 of 2010 1. Lakhan Lal Soni, aged about 52 years, s/o. Mahettar Soni 2. Rajdulari Soni, w/o Lakhan Lal Soni, aged about 48 years, r/o Padimaar, Bhadrapara, Balco, Korba C.G. VERSUS 1. Param Lal Sahu, aged about 32 years, r/o Bhatgaon Bilaigarh, Raipur. (Driver of vehicle) 2 Jain Transport Company New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Raipur, Proprietor Ashok Jain, s/o Indra Kumar Jain, r/o Baloda Bazar, distt. Raipur C.G. (Owner of vehicle) 3 The New India Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, Civil Line Baloda Bazar, Raipur C.G. (Insurer) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (04mAugust,2011) y-T^^^^^ \/"s^ li'f " i i'l^^i^ j ';^ '^~:?:^.^::^J'"^:^ ^- M.A.C.No. 165 of 2010 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 Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kobra (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No.48/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,10,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate Parents of deceased Ku.Devki Soni by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 22.05.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.-04-G/6348, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Truck has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,0007- per annunh on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By ^^ys^^ ^y/'^^ '% ^' ^l .:l\..-., 'i ^sy^ M.A.C.No.165of2010 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.30,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,60,0007- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their daughter Ku.Devki Soni in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,60.000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petitiontill the date ofactual payment. 6) Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, 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 her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,60.000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, 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, the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by 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/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of f£,..l1i ^\ M MAC.No. 165 of 2010 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.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstancesof the present case. 10) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased, has assessed her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the MotorVehicles Act. 11) Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles 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 M.A.C.No.165of2010 respeqt 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." 12) 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. 13) 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 essentia.l 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. 14) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimants' daughter Ku. Devki Soni lost her life took place in the year 2007. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2007 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/- per annum in the year 2007. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- perannum. aH MAC.No. 165 of 2010 15) Considering that deceased Ku. Devki Soni was unmarried on the date of the accident, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. The daimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in view 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 has been held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10. 17) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,0007- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,90,0007- as compensation for the death of their daughter Ku. Devki Soni in the motor accident. 18) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,90,0007- with further quantified M.A.C.No.165of2010 •^ n\mmi amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rs.30,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge