Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 252 (CHH)

BALARAM v. VIJAY KUMAR

2012-09-26

RAJEEV GUPTA, RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR

body2012
ORDER Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1. This is claimants' appeal for el1hancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Pendra Road district Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.04.2011, passed in Claim Case No.39/2011. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.21,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, sister, brother and uncle of deceased Manoj Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the Motor accident on 26.01.2010, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,08,000/- 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 Manoj Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.01.2010; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Car bearing registration No.C.G.12-D/9659; as the above offending vehicle Maruti Car, on the date of the accident, was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4. As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Maruti Car has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above findings recorded by the Tribunal, the same now have attained finality. 5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.7,500/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.7,500/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.97,500/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.1,07,500/-. By rounding off the above amount of Rs.1,07,500/- to Rs.1,08,000/- the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,08,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Manoj Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6. Shri Y.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- only. 7. Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Maruti Car, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish any independent income of deceased Manoj Kumar, the compensation of Rs.l,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is lust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Deceased Manoj Kumar though was stated to be 19 years of age in the claim petition, the Tribunal found that he was aged about 17 years on the date of the accident. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Manoj Kumar used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as labour, the Tribunal assessed his income 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 Vehicles Act. 9. 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). 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." 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Manoj Kumar lost his life took place in the year 2010. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2010 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 2010. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 13. Considering that deceased Manoj Kumar on the date of the accident was unmarried, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs. Mohammed Jameel and another (2009) 2 SCC 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses t of the deceased. 14. Mohammed Jameel and another (2009) 2 SCC 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses t of the deceased. 14. Considering that the claimants are parents, sister, brother and uncle of deceased Manoj Kumar, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the .dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and another, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 15. 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 deceased Manoj Kumar in the motor accident. 16. The claimants are awarded further slim of Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.82,000/-. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.82,000/-. 18. Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) (Rs.82,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.82,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19. No order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed.