Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 167 (CHH)

Urmila v. Krishnaswami Pille

2012-07-06

RAJEEV GUPTA, RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR

body2012
JUDGMENT : RAJEEV GUPTA, J. 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.4.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 121 of 2009. As against compensation amount of Rs. 30,50,000/- claimed by the appellants-claimants, unfortunate widow and minor daughter of deceased Sahebram Sahu, by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 21.6.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 2. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sahebram Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.6.2008; the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased Sahebram Sahu himself who was driving his motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 06-ZE 4777 and the driver of the other vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. CG 04-G 4135; the negligence of deceased Sahebram Sahu and the driver of the truck was to the extent of 50 per cent each; as the above truck, on the date of the accident, was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the insurance company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance company was liable to pay 50 per cent of the compensation assessed to the claimants. 3. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs. 24,000/- for the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,000 with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 22,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs. 2,30,000/-. As deceased Sahebram Sahu himself was held responsible for the accident to the extent of 50 per cent, Tribunal directed the insurer of the truck to pay 50 per cent of Rs. 2,30,000/-, i.e., Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sahebram Sahu in the motor accident. 2,30,000/-. As deceased Sahebram Sahu himself was held responsible for the accident to the extent of 50 per cent, Tribunal directed the insurer of the truck to pay 50 per cent of Rs. 2,30,000/-, i.e., Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sahebram Sahu in the motor accident. Claims Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly held it to be a case of contributory negligence where deceased Sahebram Sahu himself also equally contributed to the accident, it has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum only; in deducting 1/3rd in place of 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- only. 5. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- assessed by the Tribunal and Rs. 1,15,000/- awarded to the claimants can never be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 6. As learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal holding that the deceased Sahebram Sahu himself also equally contributed to the accident, we do not deem it necessary to examine this aspect of the matter. 7. Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. True, claimants pleaded that deceased Sahebram Sahu used to earn Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum as food-grain wholesale dealer, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9. 3,00,000/- per annum as food-grain wholesale dealer, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9. The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 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 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. 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. (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 unfortunate accident wherein deceased Sahebram Sahu lost his life took place in the year 2008. If the increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2008 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 2008. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 14. Since all the six claimants who are widow and minor daughters of deceased Sahebram Sahu were wholly dependent on him, we deem it proper to deduct only 1/4th of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 27,000/- per annum by deducting 1/4th of Rs. 36,000/- for the personal expenses of the deceased. 15. The deceased Sahebram Sahu was shown to be 45 years of age in the claim petition as well as in his post-mortem report. The dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , prescribes multiplier of 14 for the age group between 41-45 years. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have applied multiplier of 14 in place of 13. 16. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 27,000/- with the multiplier of 14 the compensation works out to Rs. 3,78,000/-. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , prescribes multiplier of 14 for the age group between 41-45 years. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have applied multiplier of 14 in place of 13. 16. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 27,000/- with the multiplier of 14 the compensation works out to Rs. 3,78,000/-. As deceased Sahebram Sahu himself has been held responsible for the accident to the extent of 50 per cent, claimants are entitled to receive 50 per cent of Rs. 3,78,000/-, i.e., Rs. 1,89,000/- towards loss of dependency. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss to estate, and Rs 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sahebram Sahu in the motor accident. 17. The learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal 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. 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 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. 89,000/- at Rs. 12,000/-. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. While maintaining the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Sahebram Sahu also equally contributed to the accident, the compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,04,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 12,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 89,000/-. 20. Respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd., is granted 3 months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- (rupees one lakh one thousand) (Rs. 89,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 12,000/- as the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 89,000/-) before the concerned Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.