?^ <.- Claimant 1S fllsc Appeal (0 Non-Claimants 2 3 Smt Sumitra Yadav, w/o Late Firanta Ram Yadav, aged about 52 years, r/o Villaae Konari, Police Station - Simaa, District Raipur (CG) Moh Kalim, s/o Moh Rahim, r/o Dewangan Mohalla Kawardha, Police Sfation - Kawartha, District abirdham (CG) (Driver of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-OQ/B/0239) Daneshwar Singh Parihar, s/o Amar Singh Parihar, r/o Parihar Road Lines Kawardha, Karpatipara, Kawardha, Tahsil & Di'strict - Kabirdham (CG) (Registered owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-OQ/B/0238) The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Shabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) (Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registration NO.CG-09/B/0239) 11 't 1 Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsei for the appellant. Shri AS Ansari, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri S S Rajput, counsel for respondent No.3. ^a ,_^.^.SS^S'sS 'ss^^^^^^^^^^.js :wEly M.A.C.No. 278 of 2010 ^ 'UI th The following order of the Court was passed by This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe 9hAdditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No.78/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,50,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant and her daughter Kum Radhika Yadav, unfortunate widow and daughter of Firanta Ram Yadav by filing a c!aim petition under Section 1 63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 15.06.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation aiong 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 that deceased Firanta Ram Yadav died on account of the injuries sustalned by him in the motor accident on 15.06.2008 involving Truck bearing registration No.CG-09 B/0239; as the above Truck on the date of the accident, was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General insurance Company Limited, and the insurance Company could not establish any breach of the poSicy conditions, the Insurance Companywas liable to pay compensation to the claimants, - '-..^.y ^^^:;;^;^^^^'^^^!^-^^^^^^.^;^ i.^^"^-':' i-s^ •; ^,.-^ ^^••'^^ MAC.No. 278 of 2010 ^ t 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findinas recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finaiity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 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 multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Firanta Ram Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further dtrected payment pf intereston the above amount of compensation of Rs.52,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the iower multiplier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of •Rs.52,000/- onty. 7) Sh(i SS Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is <5.: :.s^SSSSSaBSS£S:si^^S^M.-, -!«»Eaas, •! S. 9SSSSS>. 1 'i ^i^^-"^ fc 4 MAC.No. 278 of 2010 c?Jb just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri AS Ansari, learned counsel for respondent No 1 Moh Kaiim and respondent No.2 Daneshwar Singh Parihar, the driver and owner of the Truck also supported the award. 9) in a motor accident ciaim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals shouid be just and proper compensatlon 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.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Firanta Ram Yadav used to earn Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month as labour, the Tribunal has 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) Section 163 - A of the Act where-under the Second Schedute was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : 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 AitSiaSWJbttu; ..-^^^^^. 5 M.A.C.No. 278 of 2010 ^ 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" 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 shal! not be required to piead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the ciaim 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 Govemment 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 Scheduie as provided in Sub - Section (3) of Section 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 f I.A.C.No. 278 of 2010 Schedule in the year 1 994 and the date of accident in the given case. 14) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Firanta Ram Yadav lost his life took place in the year,2008. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 to the year 2008 are taken'into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of t'ne Motor Vehicles Act would come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2008. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taklng the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 15) By deducting the usuaS 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that deceased Firanta Ram Yadav was shown to be 60 years of age in his postmortem report, the multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side, as multiptier of 8 has been prescribed in the Second Schedute for the age group between 55-60 years. 17) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation works out to Rs.1,92,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.9,500/- prescribed in the Second Schedule under other conventional heads, the claimant becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,01,500/- as compensation for the death of deceased Firanta Ram Yadav in the motor accident. M.A.C.No. 278 of 2010 18) Learned counsei for the pariies submitted that with a view to avoid any possibte dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amountof interest on the enhanced amount of comperisation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 19) 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.1,49,500/- at Rs.11,500/-. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,01,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.11,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.1,49,500/-. 21^ Respondent No.3 the Bajaj Allianz Generai Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,61,000/- (Rs.1,49,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.11,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,49,500/-) before the concerning Ctaims Tribunal. 22) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge ,^^~ r'- ^ss^^-