"\ H1GH &OURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH CORAS^: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUIVIAR SiNHA, J. AppeSlants Claimants iVlisc. Appeal No.412 of 2002 1 Nihali Ram Gond aged about 47 years, S/o Shri Vishnu Singh Gond 2 Smt Fanbai, aged about 45 years, W/o Shri Nihaliram, both resident of Devrikurdh, Tahsil and Distt, Biiaspur VERSUS 1 Amoi Das, aged about 50 years S/o Rambharos (Driver) Resident of Sakari Barr, Tahsil & Distt Bilaspur 2 Ramkumar Kosle, S/o Shri Chedilal Kosle, President, Reftar Pariwahan Samitj, R/o of village Junwani, Post MalharDistt Bi!aspur(CG) Appeal under Section 173 of IViotor Vehicles Act, 1988 Respondents Non-appiicants Present: Shri ArvEnd Dubey, counsei forthe appellants. Shri VK Pandey, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (26th March, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta,;C.J. • This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Biiaspur (fpr short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.08.2001, passed in claim case No.4/2000. II M :fci ii?I R r^^s ^^ fe^ K'-f^ .^".-a ;i ^-^:AS^^:.—^ ^??!^^ -^' ^ ^ 2. i As against the compensation of Rs.17,27,000/- daimed by the appeliants/i ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Hara Singh, by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 ofjthe Motor Vehicles 1 Act, for his death in the motor accidention 13.06.1999, thelTribunal awarded a total sum ofRs.1,15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing ofthe ciaim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 3. The Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the parties heid that deceased Hara Singh died on account ofthe injuries sustained by himin the motor accident on 13.06.1999; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Bus bearing registration No.MP26C/5420; as the offending vehicie Bus was not insured, the driverand owner of the Bus were Eiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. The Tribunal 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-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personat expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/-. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,QO,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribuna! further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- @ 9% per annum T L-^r^-±^-=:-^^ —-^" ^1 ./<z-. 4 frpm fhe date of fitingof the daim petition ti!l the date of actual payment. 5. Shri Arvind Dubey, tearned counse! for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the daimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower muitiplier of 10; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-on!y. 6. Shri VK Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Ramkumar Kosle, the owner of the Bus, on the other hand, supported the impugned award and contended that as the ciaimants could notestablish the incomeof the deceased as pieaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award.the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the claimants' son Hara Singh diedon account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.06.1999; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver ofthe offending vehicle Bus; as the offending vehicie Bus was not insured, the driver and owner of the Bus were Hable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finaiity. 8. True, the ciaimants pleaded that their son Hara Singh used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as Electrician, the evidence led inthat behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any •\ ^^:4^-^^ ^ ^ ,,. i, ~.--T7——^-^.^^ '\ ..-£-. fauitjin the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants' evidence about 'the income of the deceased. 9. Neverthe|ess, the income of thedeceased assessed by the Tribuna! at Rs.15,000/- per ahnum is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 10. Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was jntroduced in the year 1 994 reads as foliows : "[163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law fbr 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 Scheduie, to the legal heirs or the. victim, as the case may be. Expianatjon - For .the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shail have the same meaning and extent as in theWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub- section(1), the daimant shall not be required to piead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect ofiwhich the daim has been made was due to any wrongrul act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehides concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of iiving by notification in the Officsal Gazettey from timeto time amend the Second Schedule." ' ~^^^S^^S^SW^ ^ ^ 11. The above quoted Sub- section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act mandated lihe Centrai Government to amend the Second Scheduie from tiiine to time keeping in view the cost of living. 12. As the Ctentra! Government has failed in amending the Second ScheduEe as provided in Sub-section (3) ofSection 163-A of the Act, the Courts/ Tribunal can take judiciai notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and thecost of living durlng the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 13. Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Hara Singh iost his life took place in the year 1999. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the costof iiving between theyear 1994 and the year 1999 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed jn the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.24,000/- in the year 1999. We, therefore, propose to compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14. As deceased Hara Singh was un-marrled on the date of the accident and after his marriage his contribution to his parents (claimants) would have been reduced substantiaiiy, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.24,000/- towards the personai' expenses of the deceased in view of the of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus SVSohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 2S ;t^ € -t^ ^ 15. j The muitjplier of 10 seiected by the Tribunal cannot be found fauit with in vi^w of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and | in view of the dictum of the Apex Courtin thejcase o^ Mtsniclpal Corporatlon ofGreater Bombay \/s. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased the multiplier should never exceed 10. 16. By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multipiier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,20,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to get a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.4,000/- for toss of estate. The ciaimants, thus, become entitled to receive a totat sum of Rs.1,28,000/- as compensation for the deathof their son Hara Singh in the motor accfdent. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeliants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,28,000/-. The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards interest on the enhancedamount of compensation of Rs.13,000/-. 18. Respondent No.2 Ramkumar Kosle, owner of theoffending vehicle Bus isigranted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.13,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards intersst on the enhanced .:^-^^ -^ sy&bu ••-<, -^ ampunt of coE|npensatlon of Rs.13,000/-) before the concerning CJaimsTribunaI. 19. No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- i SunilKumarSinha Judge J •"~:r"^[^s^^