»N 'w^& '^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISJQN BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 945 of 2009 1. Dasru Ram' s/o Butena, aged about 45 years, caste Kumhar. 2. Sukhrajiya Bai, w/o Dasru Ram, aged about 40 year, caste Kumhar, Both are r/o Village Pasta, Police Station Ramanuj Nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. VERSUS 1 Ahmad Husain Ansari, s/o Nasir Mohammad, aged about unknown, r/o Village Bisunpur, post Devnagar, Police Station &^ Tahsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. 2 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act, Respondents Non-applicants Present: Shri P.K. Patel and ShriGovindDewangan,counsel for the appellants. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (08th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ';:.l. .^"" ^ ^ This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.04.2009, passed in Claim Case No.20/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Tarvind Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 03.11.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,42,000/- 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 the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.15D/7061, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the incomeofthe deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.9,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.9,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,35,000/-. By awarding further sum ofRs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,42,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Tarvind Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal furtherdirected payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of ^^K^,^ ^ ,;-^-^ '^^ •:m^; i .;f 1E a IIBWNNN& Rs.1,42,0007- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri P.K. Patel and Shri Govind Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- only. 5) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Motorcycle, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6) The claimants pleaded that their son deceased Tarvind Kumar used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by making and selling earthen pots. The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased assessed his income at Rs.1,500/- per month. 7) In our opinion, the Tribunal while discarding the claimants' 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 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year1994 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 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." 9) 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. 10) 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 judidal notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living during t^e period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 11) Now reverting to the presentcase, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimants' son deceased Tarvind Kumar lost hislife 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. 12) As deceased Tarvind Kumar on the date of the accident was unmarried, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, 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) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. 13) Considering that the claimants are parents 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 ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. ) 14) 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 their son Tarvind Kumar in the motor accident. 15) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.48,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.48,000/-. 17) Respondent No.2 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.53,000/- (Rs.48,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.48,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Jiistice Sd/- ^ ^. Chandrakar Judge padma