Ei"^ rr? - ^ ^ ^Q- "?. 23 ^p^ (Ciaimants) COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SUNIL KUSVIAR S!NHA, J. Misc. Appeai (C) No. 1413 of 2G08 1 Smt. Basanta Bai, aged about 40 years, w/o late Aghan Singh. 2 Bhagwani Ram, aged about 22 years, s/o late Aghan Slngh. 3 Ku. Santoshi, aged about 16 years, d/o late Aghan Singh. 4 Ku. Pawara, aged about 10 years, d/o iate Aghan Singh. 5 Ku. Parmeshwari, aged about 4 years, d/o late Aghan Singh. Appeliant No. 3 to 5 through his guardian mother. Aii the appellants are by caste Gond R/o Village Salhe, Thana & Tahsit Bhanupratappur, Distt. Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 1 Shayamlal, aged about 42 years, S/o. Jogaram Koie, R/o. Viflage Tekadhora, Thana & TahsEI Bhanupratappur, Distt. Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 2 Rambabu Jaiswai, aged about 50 years s/o Shri Harshankar Jaiswal, R/o Maln Road Kachhe, Chouki Kachhe, Thana & Tahsii Bhanupratappur, Distt. Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 3 Rellance Generai insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Bhopal, F.F. 10, Block C, Mansarobar, Commerda! Compiex Habjbganj, Near Railway Station, Hoshangabad, Road Bhopal. Respondents EVSiscejlaneoijs ADpeai under Sectlon 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present: Shri Puneet Ruparel, iearned counsei for the appeffants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counse! for respondent No.3. QRDER sth (18tn September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Gupta, CJ. This ss claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna!, Bhanupratappur, Kanker (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 31.07.2008, passed in Ciaim Case No.105/2007. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.13,75,640/- ciaimed by the appeilants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, and children of deceased Aghan Singh by fi!ing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 01.05.2007, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,70;000/- as compensatlon along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition tilS the date of actual payment. 3. Shri Puneet Ruparel, Jsarned counsei 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; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.1 ,70,000/- on!y. t li i' ! .' 1 l':li !i;;\ i.-.-v; /Pl^ i "^. '3?^g^ ^' 4. Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsei for respondent No.3 Reiiance Genera! Snsurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the cEaimants could not estab!ish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper compensatlon in the facts and drcumstances of the present case. 5. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Aghan Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.05.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivlng of the driver of the offending vehicie Marshai Jeep; and the Insurer of the offending vehlcie Marshai Jeep was tiable to pay compensation to the ciaimants have now attained flnality. That apart, these flndings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 6. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Aghan Singh used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month, the evidence led by the claimants in that behalf was not of ciinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fauit in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the clalmants' evidence about the Income ofthe deceased. 7. Nevertheiess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum Is certainiy on the iower side and requires reconsideration. "s^^ss^ •••^S^-my. •^-"i;/: ^-•^' 8. Notiona! income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The accident in the present case vvtierein deceased Aghan Singh iost his ilfe took piace in the year 2007. 9. Sectlon 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced En the year 1994 reads as folbws : "I163A. Special provlsions as to payrrsent of compensatlon on structured formuia basls.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other !aw for the time being in force or Instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shail be iiabie to pay in the case of death or permanent dlsabiement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehlcle, compensation; as indlcated in the Second ScheduEe, to the iegal heirs or the vlctim, as the case may be. Explanation -• For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disabiiity" shail 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 disabiement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negiect or defauit of the owner of the vehicte or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Centrai Government may, keeping in view the cost of fiving by notjfication in the Official Gazette, from tlme to time amend the Second Scheduie." •-""\ 10. The above quoted Sub- section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act mandated the Centrai Government to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 11. As the Central Government has faiied in amending the Second Schedule as provlded in Sub-section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act, the Courts/ Trlbunaf'can take judiciai notice of increase in the prices of essential commodlties and the cost of iiving durlng the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 12. Now reverting to the present case, the accident in which deceased Aghan Singh tost his !ife took piace in the year 2007. !f the Increase in the prices ofthe essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2007 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 2007. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 13. By deductlng the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14. Considering that deceased Aghan Singh was aged about 45 years and same age was shown in his postmortem report also, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 wouid be appropriate in the present case in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court In the case of Sarla Verma (smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC -121. ^. 15. By muitiptying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 14 the compensation works out to Rs.3,36,000/-. The ciaimants are further entitied to recelve Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for toss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitied to receive a totai sum of Rs.3',51,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Aghan Singh in the motor accident. 16. Learned counsei for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the partles about the period for which the ciaimants are entitled to recelve Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatlon may be quantified in this appeai itself. 17. The accident in the present case whereln deceased Aghan Sing'n lost his iife took place in the year 2007; the ciaim petition was filed by the ciaimants in the year 2007; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal In the year 2008; the present appeai was filed by the appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensatjon in the year 2008; and the appeal is being finaily decided in the year 2009. Considering a!l the relevant factors Includlng the delay in disposal of the daim 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.1,81 ,000/- atRs.18,000/-. 18. For the foregoing reasons; the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for_enhancement ofthe compensation is allowed in part. ^^^^. ^ .i '"^^^y The compensation of Rs.1,70.000/- awarded by the Tribuna! is enhanced to Rs.3,51,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.18,0007- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,81,000/-. 19. Respondent No.3 Reiiance General insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,99,000/- (Rs.1,81,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.18,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,81,000/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribuna!. 20. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunilKumarSmha Judge ^ ^ subbu