,^saa^v y^~^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Applicants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1179 of2007 1. Smt. Gayatri Choudhary, wd/o late Shri Rajiv Choudhary, aged abbut 49 years. 2. Ravi Choudhary, s/o late Shri Rajiv Choudhary, aged about 27 years. 3. Ku. Raksha Choudhary, d/o late Shri Rajiv Choudhary, aged about 25 years. 4. Ku. Geeta Choudhary, d/o late Shri Rajiv Choudhary, aged about 22 years. 5. Ku. Sita Choudhary, d/o late Shri Rajiv Choudhary, aged about 22 years. All by caste Brahmin and resident of village Belbhadrapur Chowk, tahsil Lahariya, district Darbhanga (Bihar), at present resident of Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, district Bastar C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Nirmal Singh, s/o Shri Bachhan Singh, by caste Sikh, aged about 62 years, resident of Tatibandh (Hirapur Colony), Raipur C.G. (Driver) \ 2. Prabandh Abhikarta, M/s Kanker Roadways, Civil Line, Raipur C.G. (Owner) ^..N.\ ^r^^ ^ ^•^A '^ M.A.C. No. 1179 of 2007 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Office, Jagdalpur, district Bastar C.G. (Insurance Company) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct Present: Smt. Mala Dubey, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No.3. QRDER rth (07tnSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.02.2007, passed in Claim Case No.51/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 12,50,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate mother, brother and sisters of deceased Raman Choudhary.by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 06.12.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,52,000/- 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- deceased Raman Choudhary died on accpunt of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.12.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver ..-N-.v M.A.C. No. 1179 of 2007 w of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.C.G.- 04ZA/0432; as the above offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India 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) 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. 15,0007- per annum on the basis of the notional jncome 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. 10,0007- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30.000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.22,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,52,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Raman Choudhary in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filingof the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Smt. Mala Dubey, 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 M.A.C. No.1179of 2007 © income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in deducting 1/3rd of the incomeofthe deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,52,000/-only. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 1,52,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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.1,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the daimants pleaded that deceased Raman Choudhary used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by working as Press Correspondent in Daily Newspaper, Haribhoomi and as Assistant in Adivasi Sahakari Samiti, no reliable and cogent evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupations of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. in this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of M.A.C. No. 1179of 2007 the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2004, 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 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 wasdue to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The CentralGovernment may, keeping in view the v cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time t6 time amend the Second Schedule." 13) The above quoted Sub- section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act -^.^^"^ ^-.r-s:s^. M.A.C. No. 1179 of 2007 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 periodbetween the introduction ofthe 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 deceased Raman Choudhary lost his life took place in the year 2004. If the increase in the prices of the essential commqdities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2004 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs. 15,0007- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) As deceased Raman Choudhary on the date of the accident, was unmarried and the claimants are his mother, brother and sisters, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, 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 Versys Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at II ^ --^••^••c^-" T;; M.A.C. No. 1179 of 2007 Rs. 18,0007- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 17) Considering that the claimants are mother, brother and sisters of the deceased, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxmanjyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,0007- 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 Ipss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Raman Choudhary in the motor accident. 19) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.38,000/-. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,52,0007- awarded by the Tribunat is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.4,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.38,000/-. 21) Respondent No-.S the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three montlTs' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.42,000/- (Rs.38,000/- towards enhanced amount of ^—: ^' 8 M.A.C. No. 1179 of 2007 s' y' compensation + Rs.4,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.38,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 22) No order as to costs. —_—___ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge subbu