^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants ^- t. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 526 of 2009 1 Lav Prasad Saraf, s/o Late Ramshwarup Saraf, aged about 52 years 2 Smt Parmeshwari Saraf, W/o Lav Prasad Saraf, aged about 47 years Both R/o Mohalla IBandhawapara, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur VERSUS 1 Istelak Khan, s/o Mohd Khan, aged about 42 years, Truck - Owner, CG 15-A-3640, Main Road Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (CG) 2 Avdhesh Kumar, s/o Ramswarup Yadav, aged about 30 years, r/o Village - Mukandand Nawapara, PS Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (CG) 3 The Orientai Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Taha Complex Ring Road, Priyadarshni Nagar, Divisional Ofyice Bilaspur (CG) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Respondents Present: Shri Ramakant Pandey, counsel for the appellants. Shri F.S. Khare, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. i:f/ 1 ? ^s^ ^:!v^sf<^ MACNo. 526 of 2009 2--7 :l^... ^. INNNMt ORDER (12th August, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Ku. Jyoti Saraf are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 157/2008. Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has also filed cross-objections challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.41,55,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ku. Jyoti Saraf, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for her death on 07.12.2006 on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 06.02.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,42,000/- 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 the claimants' daughter Ku. Jyoti Saraf died on 07.12.2006 on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 06.12.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.. C.G.-15 A/3640; as the above offending MACNo. 526 of 2009 ^ vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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. 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-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By 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 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,10,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.32,000/- under other heads including Rs.12,000/- towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,42,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their daughter Ku. Jyoti Saraf in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Ramakant Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 15.000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,42,0007- only. ^^&^^^. ^'^^, '^.,\ ^.^ '"^\ ^:. ^..'M- :., MACNo. 526 of 2009 y\ ^—•' (^ 6) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Shri FS Khare, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Istelak Khan and No.2 Avdhesh Kumar, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 8) 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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,42,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that their daughter Ku.Jyoti Saraf used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by working as teacher in Devine Coaching Class, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. .,^^% MACNo. 526 of 2009 ^o ^. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2006 on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 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: "[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 SecondSchedule,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(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." s^^^f^ MACNo. 526 of 2009 o 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 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 wherein the claimants' daughter Ku.Jyoti Saraf lost her life took place in the year 2006. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2006 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.36,000/- in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that deceased Ku. Jyoti Saraf was unmarried on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that 50% of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards her personal expenses in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009)6 -""^"\ /r:^ '% .1tl ^^fi^w^ •^ ^Q^/ "%^^' MACNo. 526 of 2009 K^ SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 17) Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, we are of the opinion that the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 10 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, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80.000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. By adding further sum of Rs. 12,0007- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,02,0007- as compensation for the death of their daughter Ku.Jyoti Saraf 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 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. ; r^'^i'^^-!. '• y / ^ MACNo. 526 of 2009 ^ 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.60,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. 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.1,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,02,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 22) With the above award, the cross-objections filed on behalf of respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal also stand disposed of. 23) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.66,000/- (Rs.60,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 24) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu