@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.@mdashThis is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 30-11-2006, passed in Claim Case No. 42/2006.
2. As against the compensation of Rs. 14,50,000/- claimed by the Appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Fekuram Sahu, by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 10-4-2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,72,000/- 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 Tekram Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10-4-2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No. CG-10/A/3007; as the offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the 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. 15,000/-per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rdof the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- 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. 42,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,72,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Fekuram Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
6. Shri J. A. Lohani, 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 income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/- only.
7. Shri A.K. Athaley, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3-the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. Shri Manoj Jaiswal, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, also supported the award.
9. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Fekuram Sahu used to earn Rs. 200/- per day as Mason, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. 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 of the deceased.
10. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- per annum in the year 2006 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.
11. Section 163A of the Act whereunder 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 (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.
12. The above quoted Sub-section (3) of Section 163A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of living.
13. As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 163A 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.
14. Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident in which deceased Fekuram Sahu lost his 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 compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/-per annum.
15. By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs. 36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency is assessed at Rs. 24,000/-per annum.
16. Considering the age of the deceased; his widow and their children, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 12 would be appropriate in the present case.
17. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation works out to Rs. 2,88,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of estate; and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 3,03,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Fekuram Sahu in the motor accident.
18. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties 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.
19. 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. 1,31,000/- at Rs. 14,000/-.
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. 3,03,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 14,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,31,000/-.
21. Respondent No. 3-the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- (Rs. 1,31,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 14,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,31,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.
22. No order as to costs.
