'-N / 1^7 Y^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. ~ -y- •f Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal No.513of2006 1, Subhash Agrawal, S/o Late Ratan Agrawal, Aged about 44 yrs. 2. Sita Agrawal, W/o Subhash Agrawal, Aged about 43 yrs, R/o Rawabhata, P.S. Urla, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS '. 1 Kirti Kumar, s/o Shri Saumi Lal Chauhan, r/o Shankar Nagar, Durg (near Gaura Chaura),' P.S. Mohan Nagar, P.0. & Distt. Durg C.G. 2 Ravinish Singh, r/o Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, P.0. Bhilai, district Durg C.G. 3 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., through Divisional Manager, Division I, the New India InsuranceCompany Ltd., Jail Road, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. IVIiscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act Present : Shri S.C, Verma, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (09m May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^ ~~'aa / ^ ^•^ The unfortunate parents of deceased Kush Agrawal are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 5tt Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.07.2005, passed in Claim Case No.03/2004. 2) / As against the compensation of Rs.1,09,90,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Kush Agrawal by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act, for his death on 12.09.2004 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.09.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/- as compensation atong with iriterest @ 6% per annum from the date offlling of the claim petition till the dateofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led beforeit held that claimants' son Kush Agrawal died on 12.09.2004 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.09.2004; the accidentoccurred dueto rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle minibus bearing registration No.CG-07 E-0204; as the above offending vehicle minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Companycould not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Companywas liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not flled any appeal against the award; the above findings recorded by the Tribunat have now attained finatity. ist^ •sseo tusssjd 941 josaoueisuunojio pue spej ayi ui uoitesuadiuoo jsdojd pue (snf si |eunqui 94} Aq pspjBMe -/ooo'ZZ'l.'sy jo uoiiesusdLUOo 941 }B4} pspusiuoo' pue pJBMB 34} psyoddns pueq jsqio aq) uo 'snqiuiiu SIOILJSA Buipuayo 9i)i^o jsjnsui SL)} 'pSttiuil AuedujoQ souejnsut .eipui MSN s4»'£'ONluepuodssj jo^ issunoo peujesi '|e ej6v J'MPns WQ (Z •e6e p|o jiaqt uisiuaject siy 01 poddns teejB pspuspo SAeq pfnoM psseaosp SL)} ^Bnoq} A|UO -/OOO'ZZ'l-'sy P uoitesuedujoo MO| BuipjBMe ui pejj9 seq |Bunqui s^ }eL|} psnBje A|}U9tU8t|8A stueiisdde 94} jo^ [ssunoo peujesi 'BLUJSA 'O'S MMS (9 •tuauiAed |enpe p siep 34) iti} uoi}!}9d LUIBIO eq} ^o Buiiy jo a}Bp eq} ujoj^ LunuuB jsd %9 @ -/QOO'ZZ'l.'sy jo uoitesuediuoo jo lunoiue SAoqe 341 uo issjsiui .(o }U8LuAed psiosjip jeijijnj leunqui 941 •tuapiooe J0}oiu sy} ui IBAABJSV 4sn»uos jiaLj} 10 Mtesp f 9l|l JOJ S}UELU!B|0 Stj} 01 UO!}BSU3dLUOO SB -/QOO'SZ'l.'Sy i0 UjnS |BtOt e papjeMB leunquj. St|} 'sssuedxs |ejsun.( spjeMO} -/QOO'Z'sy ^o ujns jsyyn^ Buipjeme Ag '-/OOO'OZ' l.'sy °1 ino p9)|joM sem uoiiesusdLuoo 3M1 'ZI. P J9!|di}|niu ei)} L^IM -/ooO'Ol'sy p Aouapuadsp lenuue 34} SuiAidiunLU Ag •uunuue jad -/ooO'Ot'sy ys passssse SEM Aouapusdsp.siuBLUiBio st|i 'pasesoBp aq} jo sasuadxs |euosjad 3L|} spjemo} -/ooo'Qt'sy P pjg/i. Buipnpep Ag -}ov ssioiiieA J0}o|/y a4i p V-E91. uoipsg jspun sinpsqog puooas 34t ui psquossjd 8LUOOUI IBUOIIOU SL|) p siseq 94} uo Lunuue jsd -/QOO'QI-'sy ie pssesoap sqi jo aLuooui sy} psssssse |eunqui 9L)i (g ! '^\\^. ;<.A yv /' /^v%%. S Bs-*'te~, 1; Vs -•-•T ^s^ '•• ^"x /'•' <f I- i*.\.^.!y' -/' T^ ^\\ "^ 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 whetherthe compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case 10) Theclaimants'son deceased Kush Agrawal wasaged about 22 years on the date of the accident. He was-a student of M.B.A. t • . course. Though the claimants pleaded that he used to assist his father in the business and a copyofthe incometax return wasalso produced before the Tribunal, but the income tax return does not reveal the nature and source of the income of the deceased. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Since deceased Kush Agrawal on the date of the accident was a student and was not having any regular income of his own, the Tribunal ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 463-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. "t2) Section 163-A of the Act wH'ere-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows: "[163 A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation onstructured formula basis— %::.l-^.^ ^ y '<••>. 2.1 (1) Notv^ithstanding 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 authorized 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 (1), theciaimant shatl not be required to ptead or establjsh that the dpath 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 ofany other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notjfication 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 totime keeping in view the cost of iiving. ^4) As the Central Government Jias 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 P».J t yf91'"^," -'.'-•^ ' '^J.~%'^:r ,!• - ^? 1:^'v^ ili,';l;^w€-' '''%jy / ^ v^- during the period between the introduction of the Second Scheduie in the year 1994and the date of accident in the given case. 15) Now, reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the clalmants' son Kush Agrawal lost his life took place in the year 2004. tf the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and 2004 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- pFescribed in the Second Schedute in the year 1994 would certainiy come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taklng the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 16) As the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and after his marriage hiscontribution to the parents would have been reduced substantially, we deem it proper to deduet 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased in vlew of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009)2Supreme Court Cases 225 and SarlaVerma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009] 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- perannum by -Cleducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 17) Considering that the claimants are parents ofthe deceased, multiplier of 10, in our opinion, would be appropriatein the present ^,--, ./' 2^ v^ case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of IVIunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman tyerand 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 should never exceed 1 0. 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. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son deceased Kush Agrawal in the motor accident. 19) The claimants are further awarded Rs.2,000/- towards' quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of Gompensation of Rs.18,000/-. 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.1,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantifled amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.18,000/-. '.^'' .-^. ' "• "' 21) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totalsum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.18,000/- towards enhanced amount of 1 •\N 8 .^ -2,0 compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhancedamount of compensation ofRs.18,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 22) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice ''^: Sd/- N.K. Agrawa! Judge subbu