A rz. r .p.. .^f^. SM^ inf' iiS^ -Claimants sasi(i-C SnKi Rewaii Bai widow of Homan Singh Mandavi, aged about 30 years, landavi son of late Shri J-ioman Singh aged about 9 years. Km. Nisha, dauahter of late Shri Homan Singh aged about 7 years. Khiianand son of late Shri Homan Singh aged about 3 years. of Hira Lai aaed 5. Saguna Bai about 60 years. Appellants No. 2 to 4 through their natural guardian mother Rewati Bai widow of Homan Singh. Al! residents of Salhetola, Tehsii- iaiod, District Durg, (C.G.) iodhan Thakur son of Tiila Ram ThakLsr, aged about 40 years, resident of Dani Tola, Poiice Satation Guroor, District - Durg (C.G.) Om Prakash son of Goverdhan Singh aged about 26 years, resident of Guroor, Tehsil Guroor, District - Durg (C.G.) Branch Manager, the Orientai Insurance Company LimiSed, Sranch Dhamtari, near Adarsh Bat Mandir, Balak Chowk, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (G.G.) LSCELLANEOUS_APPEAL UiSEDER SECTION 173 OF TH! Pres< Sanjeev Banjare, learned counsel for the app8l!anto. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. & Shri P. Dutta, iearned counsel lill] III! for respondent No.3. (8th October, ie following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: This is ciaimants' appeai for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Addltional Motor Accidents .Clalms 'ribunal, Dhamtari, (for short, 'the Tribunai') vlde award dated ).2006, passed in CIaim Case No. 13/2005. 2) The appe!lants/ claimants, unfortunate wldow, minor children and mother of deceased Homan Sinah Mandavi ciaimad compeRsation of Rs.19,25,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the IVlotor Vehicies Act (fbr short, 'the Act'), for his death in the motor accident on 10.11.2004 when the Metador bearina reaistration No.C.G. i/0121 in which he was traveilins as a labour met with an accident and over-turned due to rash and negiigent drivina of its driver resulting in multipie serious injuries to Homan Singh !Y4andavi who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in Masihi Hospitai, Dhamtari. The claimants pieaded that deceased Homan Singh Mandavi used to sarn Rs.150/- per day as Porter (Hamai) 3) The o'wner and driver of the offending vehicle Metador did not contest the ctaim and were proceeded ex parte. ^,£s3ssey. '^ s •» s •^s^ 4) The insurer of the offending vehicie Metador contested the claim and denied its iiability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle Metador was not holding a valid driving licence 8nd the Metador vras being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 5) The claimants examined AW1 Rewati Bai and AW2 Vijay Kumar in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador did not examine any witness in rebuttai. 6) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Homan Singh Mandavi died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.11.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Metador; and as the offending vehicle Metador on fhe date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limlted, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of t'ne notional .income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe Act. }y deducting 1/3 of Rs.15,000/- towards the personaf expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10.OOO/- per annum. By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/'- wifh the multipiier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Homan f'..--^''''- i'.J' %»>%. ^•^. ^-, .ses Singh Mandavi in the motor .accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the abo'/e amount of compensation Rs.1,80,000/- @ 6% per .annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 8) Shri Sanjeev Banjare, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evicience abouf the income of the deceased and in assess'ng his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding Sow compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- onty. 9) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel Tor respondent No.3, the Orienta! Insurance Company Limited, on the ot'ner hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not estabiish the income of the deceased as pieaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensafion in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The findings recorded by the Tribunai that deceased Homan Sing'n Mandavi died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivinfl of the driver of the offending vehicie Metador; and the insurer of the Metador was liable to pay compe'nsation to the claimants have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, these findinas are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunai. 11) In a motor accident ctaim 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 ofthe case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a 12) Now, we shall examine as to whether 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. 13) True; the claimants pieaded that deceased Homan Singh Mandavi used to earn Rs.150/- per day by working as Porter (Hamal) on the Metador, but the evidence ied in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not flnd any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discara'ing the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 14) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum is certainly on the lower side and requlres reconsicieration. 15) Notionai Income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Homan Singh Mandavi lost his l.ife took place in the year 2004. 16) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : "1163 A. Special Drovisions as to pavment of sasis — (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 vehicie or the authorized 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" shali 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 neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Centrai Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to tlme amend the Second Schedule." 17) The above quoted Sub-Section (3$ of Section 163-A of the Act mandated the Centrai Government to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of livlng. 18) As the Centrai Govemment 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 living during ssest "^?£r!. "^?... f£^--~\ ftS-SfSk S t? <^'W€^1 '<<!S'3T^-, ^> the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 19) Now, reverting to the present case, the accident in the present case, wherein deceased Homan Singh Mandavi lost his iife took place in fhe year 2004. If the increase in the prices of essentlal commodities and the cost of iiving during t'ne period the year 1994 and the vear 2004, are taken into consideration, the notional Income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Scheduie in the year 1994 v>fould certainly come to /- per annum in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose -compute the compensation taking the income of the i.^0, o re- deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 20) By deducting the usuai 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the clajmants' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/-. 21) Considering that deceased Homan Singh Mandavi was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that the muttiplier of 16 would be appropriate in yievi' ofthe recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma(Smt.) •s. (2009) 6 SCC - 121, wherein fhe multipJier of 16 is prescribed for the age group between 31 years to 35 years. 22) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitipller of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The ciaimants are further entitled to recelve Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for ioss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a tota! sum of Rs.3,99,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Homan Singh Mandavi in the motor accident. 23) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that w/ith a view to avoid any possibie dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive inierest on the enhanced amount of compenss-tion, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeai itseif. 24) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Homan Singh Mandavi lost 'nis life took place in the year 2004; the claim petition vvas fiied by the ciaimants in the year 2005; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2006; the present appeai was filed by the appeilants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2006; and the appeai is being finaily decided in the vear 2009. Consldering all the relevant factors inciuding 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 deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,19,000/- at Rs.21,000/'-. 25) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeiiants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is aliowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Trlbunai is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.21,0007- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,19,000/-. 26) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time for deposlting the total sum or Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.2,19,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.21,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,19,000/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 27) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge subbu