" \°" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU^ DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc^Apeeal No.81 of 2006 Appellant Claimant BUU1iM!»* Smt. Vandana @ Shailu Trivedi aged about 40 years wd/o Vipin Bihari Trivedi r/o near Durga Mandir, Santoshi Nagar, P.S. Tikrapara Sahar, TahsH and Dist. Raipur C.G. Respondents VERSUS t Raghav Singh, aged 25 years S/o Sitaram Sengar R/o Kalkapara, Ward No.7, Dongargarh, dist. Rajnandgaon C.G. Matin Ahmad Kureshi aged about 35 years, S/o. abdul Gafur Kureshi R/o Kalkapara, Ward No.7, Dongargarh, dist. Rajnandgaon C.G. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Office Krishna Complex, Jail Road, Raipur City, Tahsil and district Raipur C.G. Prem Prakash Yadav, aged 19 yrs, S/o. Ramanand Yadav, R/o Durgapara, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur C.G. The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, Branch Office No.2, R.D.A. Building, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730F THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. E \. .-^^^. Present: Shri R. Pradhan and Ms. Sashi Bareth, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent. No.3. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER ith (9InlVlarch,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate mother of deceased girt Ku. Jyoti Trivedi, aged about 20 years is the appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.11.2005, passed in claim case No.34/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate mother of deceased Ku. Jyoti Trivedi, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 16.06.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,17,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the dateofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimant's daughter Ku. Jyoti Trivedi died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 16.06.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Marshall Jeep bearing registration No.CG-04ZP/1714; as the above offending vehicle Marshall Jeep on the date ofthe accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Companywas liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the, award, the above findings recordecl 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. By deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.7,500/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.7,500/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,12,500/-. Byawarding furthersum ofRs.5,000/- underother heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,17,500/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her daughter Ku. Jyoti Trivedi in the motor accident. The Tribunal further direcfed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,17,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) ~Shri R. Pradhan and Ms. Sashi Bareth, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the incomeofthe deceased towards her personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,17,500/- only. 7) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Marshall Jeep, on the other hand, supported the award and contended thatas deceasedKu. Jyoti Trivedi on the date of the accident had no independent income of her own, the compensation of Rs.1,17,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation n the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.5,the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurerofthe Scooty also supported the award. 9) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals 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. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,17.500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. i compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) The Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased Ku. Jyoti Trivedi, who was a student of B.A. Part-11 in the year 2003 on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the ^i^^'^^. ysei.,^ '•t'l.''^ yffR-. '''^••^^ ^.—'y "'•^ss,^^'"" Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. 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 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 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 vehiele 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) of Section 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 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 accident in which deceased Ku. Jyoti Trivedi lost her life took place in the year 2003. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2003 are taken into consideration, the notional incomeof Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose to compute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that deceased Ku. Jyoti Trivedi was unmarried on the date,of the accident and after the death of her father during the pendency of the claim petition, only surviving claimant in the case was her mother Smt. Vandana @ Shailu Trivedi, we are of the opinion that the deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses would be appropriate ^' ^:S'^^3^s^!^^SS!5B^S «"S?3S!"B*UNB^I »: ^gss^^^sSSESSS'SS^SSS^SSWStl in the present case. We, therefore, assess the claimant's dependencyat Rs.15,000/- perannum. 17) In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 10. The abovemultiplier also appears to be just and proper in the case as deceased Ku. Jyoti Trivedi, who was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident would have been married in due course and would not have remained with the claimant for a long time. i 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 15,0007- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation for the death of her daughter Ku. Jyoti Trivedi in the motor accident. 19) 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 claimant is 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 matterincluding the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal Ks^a^KS^S':SZa3s!3'S3^^S^^S^:^^!S'^s subbu and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay ih the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,500/- at Rs.4,500/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,17,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- with further quantified' amount of interest of Rs.4,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,500/-. i 22) Respondent No.3 The United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.47,000/- (Rs.42,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.4,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,500/-) before. the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. S(V- Chief Jiistice Rang