Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 282 (CHH)

RAHI BAI NARA WAY v. SANTOSH KUMAR ALIAS PRAKASH

2009-10-28

RAJEEV GUPTA, T.P.SHARMA

body2009
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :- 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.12.2003, passed in Claim Case No. 117/2002. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.23,15,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Chandulal by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 28.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1, 78,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum, in the event of the insurer's failure to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants within one month of the passing of the award. 3. Shri Santosh Yadu, 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 awarding low compensation of Rs.1, 78,000/- only. 4. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3/New India insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the sward and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Chandulal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.05.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; and as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants, have now attained finality. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above finings recorded by the Tribunal. 6. 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. 7. We, therefore, affirm the above finings recorded by the Tribunal. 6. 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. 7. Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,78,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Chandulal used to earn Rs.150 - 200/- per day by selling vegetables, ice and bread, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- per annum 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: "[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 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), 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. " 11. (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) 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 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 accident in the present case wherein deceased Chandulal lost his life took place in the year 2002. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and 2002 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/-prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs. 30,000/- in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per annum. 14. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 15. Considering the age of the deceased and his widow, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 16. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.3,00,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/-for loss of consortium to the widow, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3, 15,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Chandulal in the motor accident. 17. 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. 18. 17. 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. 18. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Chandulal lost his life took place in the year 2002; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2002; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2003; the present appeal was filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2004; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors 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.1,37,000/- at Rs. 14,000/-. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,15,000/-withfurther quantified amount of interest of Rs.14,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,3 7,000/-. 20. Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,51,000/- (Rs.1,37,000/towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.14,000/-towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,37,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21. No order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed.