HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 472 of2010 Appellants Claimants 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Durga Bai w/o Kuber aged 28 years. Te]ram s/o Kubar aged 23 years. Davendra s/o Kubar aged 20 years. Bhanbati d/o Kuber aged 18 years. Bati Bai w/o Mahavir aged 50 years (all above r/o Bhata Kokadi, P.S. Dhamdha Tehsil and district Durg) VERSUS Respondents 1 Kishanram Sahu aged 50 years s/o Chaturam Sahu r/o Polsay para district Durg C.G. (Driver cum owner vehicle M.O.R./9205) of offending 2 Durg Roadways G.E. Road, Durg, (Owner of offending vehicle M.O.R./9205) 3 Regional Manager, the New India Insurance Company Ltd., Parakh Bhawan Station Road, Durg. (Insurance Company of offending vehicleC.G./07/ZD/7213) Misc. AppealiLnder Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri B.P. Singh, counsel for the appellants. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER •th (05InAugust,2011) k:"'^y-^sgi'^^•^.'i';''-''^^:^^^.. £i':!:'^.^^&^':^.;^K^& xy MAC.No. 472 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 11' Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No.104/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.84,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children, and mother of deceased Kuber, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.01.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,85,000/- 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 that deceased Kuber died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.01.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the'offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. M.O.R.9205; as the above offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. :,,i-5y&»:, •^^"^^^-, '•'^^^ fsS-'^fSi MAC.No. 472 of 2010 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the 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 the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. B'y 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 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,85,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kuber in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claim'ants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and ih awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,85,000/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learnedcounsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus, on the other hand, supported the award ^~:^i^^' '^ ..s^-^'^^':'^;'^. ^^...^[Z^^^^sSs^^^^^^^ -^.—-^^,^,^,.- :,jgaga^.. •" ti. MAC.No. 472 of 2010 ^ and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- 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/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. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- 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 Kuber used to ^ earn Rs.15,000/- per month from agriculture, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.15,000/- per month. In fact, it has come in the evidence of the claimants themselves that the agricultural land belonged to the father of the deceased. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach 6f the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the • income of the deceased. 11) , Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2000 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows: ''fiaste.ffi^^ ~'"'*S"S^S6S ~^.' '.•\:.::'-.,^sSSSg.-a^&SS£^& i^^:.:-»-^.' SS»wS-.^- M.A.C.No. 472 of 2010 "[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 vehicl 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." 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 ^^"^^'^iS^'SN^"''':'''"'"''-''"'."'" : ^":T-^:»<a»itei .^K-.^.^^^.-t', ^•^••:"" .Sj,?ia^,,...,^ •"~Tv^vi'r ^-f!-"~"=j": 'r"nli' MAC.No. 472 of 2010 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 acMent in which deceased Kuber lost his life took place in the year 2000. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2000 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.24,000/- in the year 2000. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 16) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 17) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased and theclaimants, in our opinion, is appropriate. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with ~the multiplier of 16 the compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. 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 claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,71,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Kuber in the motor accident. 19) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the M.A.C.NO. 472 of 2010 subbu r[ period for which the ctaimants 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. 20) 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.86,000/- at Rs.9,000/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71.000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.9,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.86,000/-. 22) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum -of Rs.95,000/- (Rs.86,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.86,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order_a_s_tp costs. -<^s; Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge •£W L-.-;. v E^l K. »,; s issjsa