A-p- J!7. ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 915 of 2008 Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-claimants Smt. Rajni Bai Nishad, age 54 years, W/o Late Jhadiram Nishad, By Caste - Kewat (Fisherman), residence of Village - Barbaspur, P.S. Mahasamund, Tahsil & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS Goutam Singh Yadav, aged 33 yrs. S/o Milou Ram Yadav, R/o Stationpara, Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver of the C.G.04/E/0524) Mini Bus No. Deman Lal Chandrakar, age - 42 yrs. S/o Shri Prem Lal Chandrakar R/o Village - Chattouna, P.S. & Tah. Arang, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) (Owner of the C.G.04/E/0524) Mini Bus No. The New India Insurance Com. Ltd. Through Divisional office, Branch Office at Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of the C.G.04/E/0524) Mini Bus No. Appeal underSection 173 ofthe.MotorVehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri JA Lohani, counsel for the appellant. • None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No.3. \ \ '•A 1 .as^ / '%,^'¥^s' •V ORDER (17th June, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow ofdeceased Jhadiram Nishadis the sole appellant before us ih this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 18.04.2007, passed in Claim Case No.36/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.18,10,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Jhadiram Nishad, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.06.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,24,000/- as compensation along 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 deceased Jhadiram Nishad died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.06.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.C.G.-04/E-0524; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company cpuld not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the ..- •*3^1-'.'..^. L^."ll:'y ^aii.gg;;,;, ij' Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The' Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day; Rs.1,500/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1,500/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. By awarding furi:her sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,24,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Jhadiram Nishad in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- @ 6% pei' annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri JA Lohani, 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.50/- per day; and Rs.1,500/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10;and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- only. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus, on the other hand, supported the award and eontended that the compensation of Rs. 1,24,000/- 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/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.1,24,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the daimant pleaded that her husband Jhadiram Nishad used to earn Rs.100/- per day by selling fish, the Tribunal has assessed the income ofthe deceased at Rs.50/- per day and Rs.1,500/-permonth. 11) 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 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. •V Bff .,/..'^-^ -< "^- . VSB% 1 %^c:y X 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) Notwithstandinganything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the forceof 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 respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or defaylt 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) ofSection 163-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 Schedule in the year 1994 and the date ofaccident in the given case. 15) Now reveri:ing to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimant's husband Jhadiram Nishad lost his life took place in the year 2006. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2006 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 2006. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) As there were only two members in the family dependent on the income of the deceased, i.e. the deceased himselfand his wife, sole claimant in the case Smt Rajni Bai Nishad, deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses would be appropriate. We, therefore, assess the claimant's dependency at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 17) Deceased Jhadiram Nishad was shown to be 56 years of age in the claim petition. The multiplier of 9, therefore, would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Ap&x Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others X Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 9 has been prescribed for the age group between 56-60 years. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 9 the compensation works out to Rs.1,62,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation for the death of her husband Jhadiram Nishad in the motor accident. 19) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimant is entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may bequantified in this appeal itself. 20) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.53,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the ,appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation is .'^t... allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,77,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.53,000/-. 22) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is grarited three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.53,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.53,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge /' Y- • a^V ^/ \