.\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. ADpeal (0 No. 503 of 2010 1 Smt. Bhawna Bai w/o Ravidas Manikpuri, aged about 38 years, 2 Kumari Gayatri d/o late Ravidas aged about 20 years, 3 Kumari Laxmi d/o late Ravidas aged about 18 years, 4 Surajdas s/o late Ravidas aged about 13 years, 5 Ku. Roshani d/o late Ravidas aged about 11 years, 6 Kumari Asha d/o late Ravidas aged about 09 years, 7 Dukaludas s/o Dwarika Das aged about 65 years, All are resident of ward No.14, Parterpara Police Station Bagbahra, tahsil & district Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS Gajpati Kharsala s/o Udhap Kharsala, aged about 23 years, r/o village Bade Kajari Jagdallpur, Jharband, tahsil & district Bargad (Orissa) (Driver of alleged vehicle Truck NO.C.G.04J/2361) Amit Agrawal s/o Sri Kedarnath Agrawal aged about 22 years, r/o present address ward No.8, near Purani Electric Office, police station Basna, tahsil Basna, district 'w' K i:g^i fti.'.B i-'z: m Rt3 JJ^^!K-^y^ueCG^UiUUfc.l^^*fc55C:?;',^sfc^A- B ^^ .A.C.No. 503 of 2010 Mahasamund C.G. (Owner of alleged vehicle Truck NO.C.G.04J/2361) 3 The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Building Kachaha.ri Chowk, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of alleged vehicle Truck NO.C.G.04J/2361) Memoof appeal ynder Section^[73jofJVIotoryehic!e Act f b ^- Present: Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellants. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (2nd November, 2011) 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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No.127/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.30,00,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfori:unate widow, children and father of deceased Ravidas Manikpuri, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.05.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,31,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. "£ ^ t= *TOSa»4BiSilsUj(^.^ ^Bci^\ ^ ...^s;... %g '%- - ^ Y "sr^ AC.No. 503 of 2010 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Ravidas Manikpuri died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.05.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself who was driving the Truck bearing registration NO.CG-13A/7246 and the driver of the other Truck bearing registration No.C.G.-04JA/2361; the extent of negligence of the deceased and the driver of the other Truck was to the extent of 50% each; as the other Truck bearing registration No.C.G.- 04JA/2361 on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the daimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.22,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.2,62,000/-. As the deceased himself was found responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%, the owner and insurer of the other Truck bearing registration No.C.G.- 04JA/2361 were directed to pay Rs.1,31,000/- i.e. 50% of ••i^._—.- -..••--- A''? v^"'^ .A.C.No. 503 of 2010 Rs.2,62,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ravidas Manikpuri in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, though the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased also contributed to the accident to the extent of50%, it has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only; in deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased in place of 1/4 towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- only. 6) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the other vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.-04JA/2361, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- 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 bonanza. K:. % SI^u"y^:tew^;s!;ii.S;' M.A.C.No. 503 of 2010 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 9) Though learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Ravidas Manikpuri who himself was driving one of the two Trucks involved in the accident responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%, for our satisfaction, we have examitied the entire evidence led by the parties before the Tribunal. Considering the nature and manner of the accident and the fact that both the vehicles involved in the accident were Trucks, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly held that deceased Ravidas Manikpuri also equally contributed to the accident. 10) The claimants pleaded that deceased Ravidas Manikpuri used to earn Rs.12,000/- per monthas Truck Driver and the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 11) 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. 12) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 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 k' <I-t.—Fuj*,i?w.uia^ASKfc;^^T^, y-s.. "~~:\\ /7 .A.C.No. 503 of 2010 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 of1923). (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 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." 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. t4) As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) ofSection 163-A pf 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 reveri:ing to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Ravidas Manikpuri lost his life took place in the I.A.C.No. 503 of 2010 year 2009. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1 994 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 ceri:ainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2009. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) In the present case, there are as many as seven claimants. Of these, claimant No.1 Smt Bhawna Bai, widow of deceased Ravidas Manikpuri whereas, claimants No.2 Kumari Gayatri, No.3 Kumari Laxmi, No.5 Kumari Roshani, No.6 Kumari Asha are his daughters and claimant No.4 Surajdas is his minor son aged about 13 years, who all were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased. Claimant No.7 Dukaludas, who is father of deceased Ravidas Manikpuri was aged about 65 years on the date of the accident. As such, this claimant also was wholly dependent on the income of the deceased. In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to deduct only 1/4 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.27,000/- per annum. 17) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Ravidas Manikpuri was shown to be 40 years of age in his postmortem report is appropriate and does not call for any interi'erence. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.27,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to ^s^^W^i^ M 3M ..L^J I.A.C.No. 503 of 2010 Rs.4,05,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The total compensation, thus, works out to Rs.4,20.,000/-. 19) As deceased Ravidas Manikpuri has been held responsible forthe accident to the extent of 50%, the claimants are entitled to receive only 50% of Rs.4,20,000/- i.e. Rs.2,10,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ravidas Manikpuri in the motor accident. 20) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal 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. 21) 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.79,000/-(Rs.2,10,000/- - Rs.1,31,000/-) at Rs.8,000/-. 22) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. While maintaining the finding about the contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Ravidas Manikpuri also contributed to the accident to .-^IA^' •-UMJII.^uia'rfjy, ^-^..^, ^uai^ '^ji' ^L...._.-„... ^ ^^^'^&^. f, ^ MAC.No. 503 of 2010 the extent of 50%, the compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,10,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.79,000/-. 23) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.87,000/- (Rupees eighty-seven thousand only) (Rs.79,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.79,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 24) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Jusdce Sd/- R.T<.Cbandral<ai" Jud&e {' r subbu