p. ) 7- ^O^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 920 of 2008 Appellant Respondents Mohammad Taslim Ansari, s/o late Bagersul Ansari, agead about 50 years, occupation Khalasi and Agent, r/o village, post and P.S. Panki, district Palamu (Jharkhand) VERSUS Murlidhar Chaudhari, s/o Shri Chunni Lal Chaudhari, r/o Radheshyam Street, Ranchi, (Jharkhand) at present r/o Tikarapara, Bilaspur C.G. MohammadAnwarAnsari, s/o Mohd. Ishak Miyan, aged about 28 years, oceupation driver, r/o village Aabul, P.S. Panki, district Palamu (Jharkhand) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Local Branch Office, Raigarh, C.G. A^pealunder Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri Roshan Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.K. Athaley and Shri N.K. Malviya, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER •th (05l"July,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by t + Rajeev Gupta, C.J. \: .?-€"% •'.ssas.Si^ ^ ^—.o.1''S "-,..T"^ Y Appellant/ claimant Mohammad Taslim Ansari is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.01.2008, passed in Claim Case No.44/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,79,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate father of deceased Mohammad Sarvar Ansari, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 27.05.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,82,000/- 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 claimant's son Mohammad Sarvar Ansari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.05.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G.-10/A-4564; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental fnsurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could notesta.blish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 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 f'^i •s ''". ..,_.... 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 claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,82,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of his son Mohammad Sarvar Ansari in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Roshan Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceasedand in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- only. 7) Shri A.K. Athaley and Shri N.K. Malviya, 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.1,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. _- •V \,^ (^ <.. 8) True, the claimant pleaded that his son Mohammad Sarvar Ansari used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by working as cleaner- cum-second driver in the truck, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In fact in the First Information Report it was categorically mentioned that deceased Mohammad Sarvar Ansari was travelling in the truck in the capacity of Khalasi. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 9) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year2005 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 10) 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). •V \ fa.. r y !ss;y ^ | a^ \ (2) In any claim for compensation under sub- section(l), the daimant 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." 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 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. 13) Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimant's son Mohammad Sarvar Ansari lost his life took place in the year 2005. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2005 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 2005. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the incomeof the deeeased at Rs.36,000/-per annum. '/ ^' //^ _ ^ i h^siSSk 1 •^y •V 14) Considering that deceased Mohammad Sarvar Ansari on the date of the accident was unmarried, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards his personal expenses, in view of the dicta of theApex 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 SCC 121. The claimant's dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50%'of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 15) Considering that the sole claimant in the case i.e. father of the deceased was having his own independent income, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case oi 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 of the deceased, the multiplier shoutd never exceed 10. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs,1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of his son Mohammad Sarvar Ansari in the motor accident. \ ^ ^ °\ 17) The claimant is further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.8,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.8,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.8,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.8,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice aa/- R-N- Chandrakar J'udge s< padma