-T^- F. R. ^-^' ^S^^I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 599 of 2010 1 Narendra Sahu, s/o Yashwant Sahu, aged about 28 years 2 Yashwant Lal Sahu, s/o Late Balram Sahu, aged about 58 years Both R/o Nawaipara Utai, PS Utai, Distt Durg (CG) Respondents VERSUS Kushal Sahu, s/o Kamdar Sahu, aged about 45 years,R/o Nahar Khapri, PS Anda, Tahsil Gundardehi, Distt Durg (CG) (Driver ofthe vehicle) Mukesh Kumar Dilliwar, s/o Late Jewanlal, Aged about 45 years, r/o Sainagar, Ratnabandha Chowk, Dhamtari, D'stt Dhamtari (Owner of the vehicle) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager In front of Adarsh Bal Mandir, Near Punjabi Gurudwara, Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari (Insurer) hfliscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri PR Patankar, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ird (03roNovember,2011) wwwmsissss^s ^ss s ^ I.A.C. No. 599 of 2010 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 12 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No.133/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate husband and major son of deceased Smt Ramkunwar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for her death in the motor accident on 01.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,32,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% perannum 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 Smt Ramkunwar died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 01.02.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.CG-12 ZC 1675; as the above offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any b.reach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. M.A.C. No. 599 of 2010 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, fhe above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of 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 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 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ofRs.1,32,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Smt Ramkunwar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,32.000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri PR Patankar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the clainlants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs. 15,0007- per annum only; in awarding only Rs.2,000/- under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- only. 7) Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the u^ y^^ J &. .'" g M.A.C.No.599 of 2010 ^ offending vehicle Dumper on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- 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.1,32,000/- 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 Smt Ramkunwar used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month from agricultural and tuition, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and her income to the extent of Rs.8,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 11) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased, has assessed her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. As the unfortunate accident in the present case resulting in the death of deceased Smt Ramkunwar took place in the year 2009 and the notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the %*(' M.A.C. No. 599 of 2010 Second Schedule in the year 1994, the assessment ofthe income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- requires reconsideration. 12) Section 163 - A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : "[163 A. 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 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 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 defaulfcof 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 [ \\ M.A.C.No.599 of 2010 Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedute." 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 of accident in the given case. 15) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Smt Ramkunwar lost her life took place in the year 2009. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of tiving between the year 1994 and the year 2009 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2009. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that claimant No.1 Narendra Sahu is major son of the deceased and is having his own independent income from his electrical store as admitted by his father in his evidence before the Tribunal, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of •Wj \y — 1AC.No. 599 of 2010 ^ the deceased towards her personal expenses. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 17) Claimant No.2 Yashwant Lal Sahu, husband of deceased Smt Ramkunwar was shown to be 58-59 years in the claim petition and in his statement before the Tribunal. In our opinion, multiplier of 9, therefore, would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Couri: in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 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 claimants are furi:her entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the husband and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Smt Ramkunwar in the motor accident. 19) The claimants are further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/-. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- awarded by Afi_^jihunaLJs_finhariiced_to Rs.1,77,000/- with further quantified .A '^.- y 8 IAC.No. 599 of 2010 amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/-. 21) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) (Rs.45,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/-) before theconcerning Claims Tribunal. 22) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar padma