AZ^7R. ^•^> '-^^ ;V GUPTA, CJ. ? 3 Smt Thagia Bai Widow of Ram Sukh Halwa aged about 48 years Raju Ram S/o Ram Sukh Halwa aged about 25 years Akiesh Kumar S/o Ram Sukh Haiwa Aged about 22 years Alt R/o Village Ramnagar, Tahsil - Balod, Distt - Durg (CG) San{ Ram S/o Sobha Ram Sahu R/o Tekapar, Tahsi! Balod Distt - Durg (Driver) Vikash Yadav S/o Pravin Kumar Yadav aged about 23 years R/o Sadar Road Balod Tahsil Balod Distt - Durg (CG) (Owner) The Orientai Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company limited Branch Dhamtari Distt - Dhamtari (CG) (insurance Company) Present: Shri N.P. Koshta, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawai and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. RTTi" -.•y '» Ei. ui». 1 S ^,^// ^^y >th The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baiod, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vlde award dated 16.11.2007, passed in Claim Case No.04/2006. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.30,25,000/- claimed by the appeliants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and major sons of deceased Ram Sukh Halwa by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 28.12.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 3. Shri N.P. Koshta, learned counsef for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 11; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-only. 4. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, tearned counsel for respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not^ establish the Income of the deceased as pleaded by •s -<1~.."•;?•' ^' them, the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Ram Sukh Halwa died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.12.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Mini Bus; and as the offending vehicle Mini Bus, on the date of the accident, W3S insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the ciaimants have now attained finalitv. That apart, these findinas are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above fina'ings recorded by the Tribunal. 6. Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation In the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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 8. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ram Sukh Halwa used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as Mining Contractor and from his aaricultural land, but the evidence led in that behalfwas not of clinchlna—nature.We, therefore, do not find anv fault i.n the "•>--... :;t:,?;i';.ij;\ Sl si-l% 1 .....// •s'-" ..^••' v.-^y ^S^S^ approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act 1s certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 10. Notionai income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The accident in the present case whsrein deceased Ram Sukh Halwa lost his life took place in the year 2005. 11. Section 1 63-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced In the year 1994 reads as follows : la basis.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other iaw 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 !iable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arisina 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 thesame 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 disabiement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to ^^ /£ S tS^ ^-y any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Centra! 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 ofthe Act mandated the Centra! Govemment to amend the Second Scheduie from time to time keeping in view the cost of liying. 13. As the Central Government has falled in amendina the Second Schedule 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 tiving durin$ the period between the introduction of the Second Scheduie in the 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. Now reverting to the present case, the accident in which Ram Sukh Halwa lost his life took p!ace in the year 2005. If the Increase in the prices of the essentla! commodities and the cost of living between the years 1994 and 2005 is taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2005. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum, 15. Considering that claimant No.2 Raju Ram and claimant No.3 Aklesh Kumar were major son of the deceased and as such were not dependant on his income, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his persons expenses as there were onty two persons in the family dependant on the income of the <rt deceased i.e. deceased himself and his widow claimant No.1 Smt.Thagia Bai. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. 16. The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Ram Sukh Halwa was aged about 50 years and his widow Smt. Thagia Bai was shown to be 48 years of age, in our opinion, is appropriate and does not cali for any interference. 17. By multiplying the annua! dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 11 the compensation works out to Rs.1,98,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss 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.2,13,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ram Sukh f-lalwain the motor accldent. 18. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 19, The accident in the present case wherein deceased Ram Sukh Ha!wa lost his life took place in the year 2005, the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2006; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2007; the present appeal was filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2008; and the appeal is being finally dscided |n_the year 2009. Considering ali the relevant factors ^ 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.73,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. F6r the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,13;000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,000/-. 21. Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totat sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.73,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest onthe enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 22—-NQjotder_as.to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge subbu