-i... IN THE HIGH COVRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.) Aj{Bellants : r- .y M.A.C.No.-Si.S^—/3S9?d^ 1y Smt.Surender Kaor, Age-48 Yrs. W/o-Bhupinder Singh, 2. Bhupinder Singh, Age-50 Yrs. S/o- Sardar Bhagvan Singh. ..-•^ 3^' Kumari Amandeep Kaor, Age-22 \&..-'''.^v" . x ^•' ..-•' Yrs. D/o-Bhupinder Singh. ^K^" Kamari Taran Kaor, Age-16 Yrs. <y~yy >"^«y/ .•••;^T<?-'^' •^'.^•^ .t?, i£) ."••''•st' ^ »*/ ^r\f / . -^'^•'^y • D/o-Bhupinder Singh On behalf of minor appellant no.4, her father Bhupinder Singh, as a next friend (Vad mifhra) All resident ofGovind nagar Pandn, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur(C.G.) VERSVS - Abdul Gaffar Abbani, S/o-Haji Suleman, ccupation-Ownde ofVehicle, R/o-Vill.- Lakhni, Post-Lakhni, Thana-Sakoli, District-Bhandara (Maharashtra). 2- The Oriental Insurance Co-Ltd»- Branch office-Katangi Line, Main road Gondia, Through-Div.Manager, Div. Office-Katcheri Chowk, Jail road, Raipur (C.G-). Policy cover note no. A-l 189666 Date ofl.imitation: from 19/4/2005 to 18/4/2006 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAWI: HON'BLE SHRI FIAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Wlisc. Appeal (C) No. 305 of 2009 Appellants 1. Smt. Surender Kaor, age 48 yrs, w/o Bhupinder Singh, 2. Bhupinder Singh, age 50 yrs, s/o Sardar Bhagvan Singh. 3. Kumari Amandeep Kaor, age 22 yrs, d/o Bhupinder Singh. 4. Kumari Taran Kaor, age 16 yrs. d/o BhupinderSingh, On behalf of minor appellant no.4 her father Bhupinder Singh, as a next friend (Vad mithra) All resident of Govind nagar Pandri, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS 'Respondents 1 Abdul Gaffar Abbani, s/o Haji Suleman, occupation owner of vehicle, r/o Vill. Lakhni, post Lakhni, thana Sakoli, district Bhandara (Maharashtra) 2 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Katangi Line, Main road Gondia, through Div. Manager, Div. Office, Katcheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. Appeal under Sectjon 173 plthe Motor VehLole Act, Present: Shri G.P. Kurre, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondent No.2. \^st .•^ j 1 'i '"ssgE°^"j^ Y °s»''y ''"•te-w^ ORDER (07th July, 2011) 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 Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.02.2007, passed in Claim Case No.32/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.26,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and sisters of deceased Gurukripal Singh, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 22.08.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% 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 insurer of the offending vehicle Mahendra Pickup Van bearing registration No. M.H.-36/335, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income ofthe deceasedat Rs.15,000/- per annum 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 ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the ..•'f.S.'-"^'-'-^-'.',. .. X ''S^Sf -fv multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Gurukripal Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri G.P. Kurre, 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 his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- only. 5) Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Mahendra Pickup Van, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Abdul Gaffar Abbani, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle Mahendra PickupVan, also supported the award. 7) 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 s .*» (%) the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunsil is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Gurukripat Singh used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in Kapoor Hotel, Bhanpuri, the evidence led in that behalf was highly discrepant and wholly unreliable. The salary certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal on the face of it looks very suspicious. The witness examined by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased AW3 Krishna Kumar Kapoor, who claims himself to be the Proprietor of said Kapoor Hotel, admitted in para 3 that it was only a Dhaba by the road side. As such, the ctaimants' pleading that the deceased was working as Supervisor in the Dhaba, ex facie does not deserve any credence. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence aboutthe income ofthe deceased. 10) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11) The assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2005 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. ;,»:;'',,--rt^. ^, 1I, i^s!s^ J, %>. ^...^ / '^tte3-'" -iS? ^" ..I-., 12) 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 vehicte, 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 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." 13) 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. 14) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 163-A ^es^S^^'9^^ ^^?.^'^'1?.-"^'1^"'!'^. ^a, ^/-^^ ^ <?^ of the Act, the Courts/ Tribunal can take judicial notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedute in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 15) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased GurukripalSingh lost his life took place in the year 2005. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2005 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 2005. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) As deceased Gurukripal Singh on the date ofthe accident was unmarried and after his marriage his contribution to the parents and sisters would have been reduced substantially, 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 Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) andOthers Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, fherefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 17) Considering that the claimants are parents and sisters of the deceased, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case 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 was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- 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.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Gurukripal Singh in the motor accident. 19) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.10,000/-. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of thecompensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.1,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 21) Respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.10,000/- towgrds enhanced amount of y/ compensation + Rs.1,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 22) No order as to costs. ——— Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge qubbu