Judgment – Heard Sri Vivek Shukla, counsel for the appellants and Sri Rajendra Dobhal, counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. By the present A.O. filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appellants have prayed for enhancing the award dated 7-2-2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Add!. District Judge, II FTC. Haridwar in MAC. Case No. 74 of 2002 Smt. Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Dil Bahadur and others. 3. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed by the claimants-appellant being MAC. No. 74 of 2002 Smt. Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Oil Bahadur and others under Section 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to the following effect: 4. According to the claim petition, on 3-7-2000, when Shyam Lal Babu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was going on his Scooter No. U.P. 10A 7035 to Dehradun city from Raipur at Dehradun by his side, all of a sudden, reached near S.S.P. Residence, a Bus No. UP 07-G 2028, which was coming from the opposite side and being driven rashly and negligently by its driver collided with scooter of the deceased. In this accident, the deceased received multiple injuries and due to injuries received, he died on the spot. The deceased was taken to Government Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. Report of the said accident was lodged by one Surendra Kumar at P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun, which was registered as Case Crime No. 318 of 2000. The deceased was a Tirth Purohit of 30 years and out of that profession, he was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The deceased is survived by his wife and four children: Chanchal, Anmol, Pooja and Mohit (all were minors at the time of filing of the claim petition). 5. The opposite parties have contested the claim petition by filing written statement. 6. Opposite party no. 2 has stated in his written statement that due to rash and negligent driving of the Scooter driving, the accident had taken place and not due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus in question as the Bus in question was standing. Further it has been stated that the amount of claim is excessive. 6. Opposite party no. 2 has stated in his written statement that due to rash and negligent driving of the Scooter driving, the accident had taken place and not due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus in question as the Bus in question was standing. Further it has been stated that the amount of claim is excessive. Further the Bus in question was insured with United India Assurance Company, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation goes on shoulders of the Insurance Company. 7. Opposite Party No. 3- Insurance Company has stated in his written statement to the following effect: 8. Opposite Party No. 1- Driver has filed his written statement stating that neither he has caused any accident, nor at the time of accident, he was driving the Bus in question, but despite that if the claimants are entitled to get any compensation, then only insurer or insured is liable to pay the compensation. Further it has been stated that the amount of claim is highly excessive and is without any evidence. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, Claims Tribunal has framed following issues: 10. On behalf of the claimants, Smt. Laxmi Devi and Amit Kumar have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. Towards documentary evidence, the claimants have filed copy of the F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. 318 of 2000 under Section 279, 304 A, 427 I.P.C. Paper No. 42Ga/1, Charge-Sheet Paper No. 43Ga/1, Post Mortem Report Paper No. 44Ga2/1, Naksha Najri Paper No. 45Ga2/1, Certificate of Acharya (Mahabrahman) issued by Panchayat Sabha paper No. 46Ga2. 11. On behalf of the opposite party, Oil Bahadur- driver has been examined as D.W.1. Opposite parties no.3 and 4 have filed original copy of Insurance Policy Paper No. 48Kha/1, 48Kha/2, Report 49Kha, Photocopy of Registration Certificate paper No.10Ga1, copy of Insurance Policy Paper No. 11Ga1, Driving Licence Paper No. 12Ga1, Insurance Policy of the Scooter 12Ga1/1. 12. 11. On behalf of the opposite party, Oil Bahadur- driver has been examined as D.W.1. Opposite parties no.3 and 4 have filed original copy of Insurance Policy Paper No. 48Kha/1, 48Kha/2, Report 49Kha, Photocopy of Registration Certificate paper No.10Ga1, copy of Insurance Policy Paper No. 11Ga1, Driving Licence Paper No. 12Ga1, Insurance Policy of the Scooter 12Ga1/1. 12. While deciding the Issue No.1 as to whether on 3-9-2000 at about 9 p.m. when the deceased was going on his Scooter No. U.P. 10A 7035 to Dehradun City from Rampur Tiraha, a Bus No. 07G 2028 which was coming from the opposite side and being driven rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, .due to which deceased succumbed to injuries Claims Tribunal has placed reliance on the statements of claimants and has recorded a finding that on 3-9-2000 at about 9 p.m. when the deceased was going on his Scooter No. U.P. 10A 7035 to Dehradun City from Rampur Tiraha, a Bus No. U.P. 07G 2028 which was coming from the opposite side and being driven rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, in which the deceased received grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries. 13. While deciding the Issue No.2 as to whether by opposite party no. 1 the accident was not caused, the claims tribunal has disbelieved the statement and cross-examination of opposite party no. 1 as sometimes he says that he knows driving and sometimes he does not. Further, he has relied upon the F.I.R. and charge-sheet and the statement of D.W.1, who has stated that after 10 to 12 days of accident, he was released on Bail in Case Crime No. 318 of 2000 P.S. Dalanwala under Sections 279, 304A, 427 I.P.C. Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that at the time of accident, Oil Bahadur was driving Bus No. U.P. 07G-2028. 14. 14. While deciding the Issue No.3 as to whether at the time of accident, the driver of the Bus No. U.P. 07G-2028 was not holding valid driving licence, Permit, Fitness, whereby he has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the claims tribunal has placed reliance on the Registration Certificate of Bus No. U.P. 07G-2028 Paper No. 10Ga1 and Survey Report Paper No. 49 Kha and has recorded a finding that at the time of accident, the driver of the Bus No. U.P. 07G-2028 was holding valid driving licence and there were valid papers of Bus. 15. While deciding the Issue No.4 with regard to quantum of compensation and payable from whom, since no sufficient documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased . has been filed, the claims tribunal has taken Rs. 15,000/- as notional income of the deceased. Out of the said incomes, 1 /3rd of personal has been deducted and amount of Rs. 10,000/- was taken as annual dependency. After relying upon the post mortem report, the claims tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 33 years and has selected multiplier of 17. Multiplying the annual dependency, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,70,000. Apart from that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- under love and affection and loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate has been awarded to the claimants. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,79,500/- has been awarded to the claimants towards compensation. The same has been distributed by the Claims Tribunal. 16. The grievance of the appellants is that the amount which has been awarded by the claims tribunal is meager as due to hike in prices of each and every article, the amount awarded by the claims tribunal contains no value. 17. Counsel for the appellant has referred Basanti Devi & Ors Vs. Naresh Rangar & Ors. 2007(1) U.D., 11, where the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: "10. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal/Court should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court, in the case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. vs. S. Rajaprixa and others reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 236, observed in paras 8 to 10 : 8. The Apex Court, in the case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. vs. S. Rajaprixa and others reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 236, observed in paras 8 to 10 : 8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct there from such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered." 11. True, the evidence led by the claimants about the income of deceased Birendra Singh @ Beeru was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased. Nevertheless, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal 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 Vehicle Act, requires reconsideration, as the same is on the lower side. 12. The notional income of Rs. Nevertheless, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal 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 Vehicle Act, requires reconsideration, as the same is on the lower side. 12. The notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was prescribed in the "year 1994. 13. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: "163-A. 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 of the authorised insurer shill 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. (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." 14. Above-quoted sub-section (3) of Section 163-A casts a duty on the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the increase in the cost of living. Inspite of the lapse of a period of more than 10 years, the Second Schedule has not been amended by the Central Government. We, therefore, deem it proper to take into consideration the erosion In the purchase value of the rupee during the period between 1994 to 2003 (the year of the accident in the present case). By taking into consideration the steep hike in the price index of the essential commodities and the resultant increase in the cost of living, we are of the opinion that the notional income of Rs. By taking into consideration the steep hike in the price index of the essential commodities and the resultant increase in the cost of living, we are of the opinion that the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994, would, in the year 2003, comes to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. . 15. Even otherwise, deceased Birendra Singh @ Beeru, who was aged about 36 years on the date of the accident, could have easily earned Rs. 80-90/- per day as an unskilled labourer. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of deceased Birendra Singh @ Beeru at Rs. 30,000/- per annum." 18. The Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya & Ors. 2005 (4) Supreme 87, has observed as under: "8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct there from such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. 11. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. 11. There were two methods adopted to determine and for calculation of compensation in fatal accident actions, the first the multiplier mentioned in Davies case (supra) and the second in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. (1951 (2) All ER 448)•. 12. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be held to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last 1. 13. The considerations generally relevant in the selection of multiplicand and multiplier were adverted to by Lord Diplock in his speech in Mallett v. Mc Mongle (1969 (2) All ER 178) where the deceased was aged 25 and left behind his widow of about the same age and three minor children. On the question of selection of multiplicand Lord Diplock observed: 'The starting point in any estimate of the amount of the dependency is annual value of the material benefits provided for the dependants out of the earnings of the deceased at the date of his death. But..... there are many factors which might have led to variations up or down in the future. His earnings might have increased and with them the amount provided by him for his dependants. They might have diminished with a recession in hide or he might have had spells or unemployment. As his children grew up and became independent the proportion of his earnings spent on his dependants would have been likely to fall. His earnings might have increased and with them the amount provided by him for his dependants. They might have diminished with a recession in hide or he might have had spells or unemployment. As his children grew up and became independent the proportion of his earnings spent on his dependants would have been likely to fall. But in considering the effect to be given in the award of damages to possible variations in the dependency there are two factors to be borne in mind. The first is that the more remote in the future is the anticipated change the less confidence there can been the chances of its occurring and the smaller the allowance to be made for it in the assessment. The second is that as a matter of the arithmetic of the calculation of present value, the later the change takes place the less will be its effect upon the total award of damages. Thus at interest rates of 4Y:z% the present value of an annuity for 20 years of which the first ten years are at $1 00 per annum and the second ten years at $200 per annum, is about 12 years' purchase of the arithmetic average annuity of $150 per annum, whereas if the first ten years are at $200 per annum and the second ten years at $100 per annum the present value is about 14years' purchase of the arithmetical mean of $ 150 per annum. If therefore the chances of variations in the dependency are to be reflected in the multiplicand ofwhich the years' purchase is the multiplier, variations in the dependency which are not expected to take place until after ten years should have only a relatively small effect in increasing or diminishing the 'dependency' used for the purpose of assessing the damages." 19. In view of the above, since the notional income has to be taken as Rs. 30,000/- per annum. After 1/3 of the personal expenses, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 20,000/-. In view of Raja Priya (supra), as the income is on higher side, the multiplier of 14 is being applied. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 2,80,000. Further so far as interest part is concerned, the same is quantified to Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 20,000/-. In view of Raja Priya (supra), as the income is on higher side, the multiplier of 14 is being applied. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 2,80,000. Further so far as interest part is concerned, the same is quantified to Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The same shall be paid by the United India Insurance Company to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. The amount of compensation shall be distributed in the same proportion as applied earlier by the Claims Tribunal. 20. Consequently, appeal is allowed with costs.