nwir* :^1 ,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVIS10N BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. ^ Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 761 of2007 1 Smt. Puni Bai, Wd/o late Harishankar Kurre, aged about 34 years. 2 Dillp Kumar, aged about 17years, S/o Late Harishankar Kurre. 3 Bhuneshwar, S/o. late Harishankar Kurre, aged about 14 years. 4 Ku. Bhuneshwari, D/o. late Harishankar Kurre, aged about 12 years. 5 Nagmohan, S/o. late Harishankar Kurre, aged about 10 years. From 2 to 5 are minors Guardian through their mother Puni Bai (appellant No.1), all residentsof Jamgahan, Post Mukta, Tah. & Police Station Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir - Champa, at present resident of l<3rodimal Nagar, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1 Smt. Manjushri Chatterjee, W/o. Shri Gautam Chatterjee, R/o Konkar Rachi, Distt. Rachi (Jharkhand) (Owner of the offending Bus) 2 Santosh Kumar, S/o Rajendra Prasad, occupation - Driver, R/o. Section-1, near temple Dhuwai, Rachi, Distt. Rachi (Jharkhand) at present resident of Jagannathpur, Distt. Saraikela, Kharsawa (Jharkhand) (Driver of offending Bus) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Oriental insurance Ltd., ttwari Bazar, Raigarh (Insurance Company) f?9 %; Sujeet Kumar Dutta, S/o Sadanand Dutta, R/o. Village Chauliyabasa, Post office Chauka, distt. Saraikela, Kharsawa (Jharkhand) (Owner of the Jeep) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch - Jamshedpur and through Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Itwari Bazar, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G,). Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Present: Shri Manoj Jaiswal, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1,2,4 and 5. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. ORDER ith (11tnSeptember,2009) The fottowing 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, Raigarh (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.12.2006, passed in Claim Case No.50/2006. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.19,05,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Harishankar Kurre, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on13.01.2005 when the Jeep bearing registration No. JH-05J-5641 in which he was travelling was dashed by the offending vehicle Bus, bearing , jistration No.BR-14P-3581, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Shri Manoj Jaiswal, learned counsel 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 low compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- only. 4. Shri Ajay Mishra, appearing on behatf of Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish any definite income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased -Harishankar Kurre died on account of the injuries sustained by him in tfie motor accident on 13.01.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus; as the offending vehicle Bus, on the date of the accident, was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. cA 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income prescribed in Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 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 multlplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation to the daimants for the death of deceased Harishankar Kurre in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Harishankar Kurre used to earn Rs.250/- per day by working as Labour on Brick-kiln for eight months and was getting Rs.100/- perday as agricultural labour for the remaining four months, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 8. 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 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 9. Notional income of Rs.1 5,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Harishankar Kurre lost his life took place in the year 2005. 10. Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows : "I163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured Tormula 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 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 thls sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in theWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any ctaim 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." L €^£-%, n I £ ..^f'^'y'' ,.?-,./ ^f y 11. 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. 12. As the Central Govemment has failed in amending 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 essentlal 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. 13. Now reverting to the present case, the accident in which deceased Harishankar Kurre iost his life took place in the year 2005. if the increase in the prices of the essential 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. 14. By deducting 1 /3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 15. Considering that deceased Harishankar Kurre was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident and his widow Smt. Puni Bai was shown to be 34 years of age in the claim petition, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. It-t^ ^ y 16. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs.3,60,000/-. 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 total sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Harishankar Kurre in the motor accident. 17. 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. 18. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Harishankar Kurre lost his life took place in the year 2005; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2006; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2006; the present appeal was filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2007; and the appeal is being finaliy decided in the year 2009. Considering all 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.1,60,000/- at Rs.20,000/-. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ daimants^for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. ^ The compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.20,000/- ,on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. 20. Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.20,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21. No order as to costs. _. Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge /