JUDGMENT : Krishnan Ramasamy, J. - Not content with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Harur, in MCOP No. 48 of 2014, dated 23.3.2017, awarding compensation of Rs. 3,56,671 as against the claim of Rs. 65,70,261, the appellants-claimants have preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellants-claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Annamalai, aged about 48 years, who was working in Amman Granites as a Production Manager at the relevant time. On 6.10.2010 the deceased was returning back to Harur from Salem, after finishing his work, in the company's vehicle, viz., Bajaj Boxer bearing registration No. TN 29-M 0699. At about 6 p.m., while he was nearing Valsaiyur, Sundharrajan Colony, very slowly and carefully by duly observing all traffic rules, at that time in order to avoid an accident from a vehicle, which was coming from the opposite direction, he took diversion on the left side of the road, due to which the vehicle hit a stone on the roadside and thereby the rider lost his control and dashed against a tamarind tree. Due to the said accident, the rider sustained head injuries and grievous injuries on vital parts of the body. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Salem, but he died on the way. A case was also registered against the deceased Annamalai in Cr. No. 297 of 2010, under sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code on the file of Veeranam Police Station. Therefore, the wife of the deceased along with the two children filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 70,00,000. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning a salary of Rs. 75,000 per month. To substantiate the same, the claimants have filed the income tax returns of the deceased Annamalai for the financial years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 also. 3. The Tribunal examined PW 1, wife of the deceased, who deposed that the deceased was working as a Production Manager in Amman Granites and earning a sum of Rs. 75,000 per month as salary. Therefore, according to PW 1, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 9,00,000 per annum. To substantiate the income of the deceased, PW 1 marked Exh. P8-salary certificate of the deceased, Exh. P9-PAN card of the deceased, Exh. P10- income tax returns for the years 2008-10 and Exh. 75,000 per month as salary. Therefore, according to PW 1, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 9,00,000 per annum. To substantiate the income of the deceased, PW 1 marked Exh. P8-salary certificate of the deceased, Exh. P9-PAN card of the deceased, Exh. P10- income tax returns for the years 2008-10 and Exh. P11-income tax return for the year 2010-11. Exh. P12 is the bank statement of the deceased and Exh. P13 is the M.Tech Certificate of the deceased. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,56,671 as compensation. The Tribunal also held that the claim application was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act'). Therefore, the main points revolving around the present appeal and to be decided are as follows: (1) Whether the Tribunal applied the cost of living as on the date of accident as per section 163-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while determining the compensation under section 163-A? (2) How to determine the compensation based on the Second Schedule to the Act by taking into consideration cost of living in accordance with section 163-A (3) of the Act? (3) Whether the Central Government has amended the Second Schedule in terms of section 163-A (3) of the Act and, if yes, whether it is relevant to the cost of living every year since 1994? If not, how should it be amended and what would be the appropriate income to be determined for the deceased for determination of compensation for the claimant(s)/ dependant(s), keeping in view the cost of living? 4. Since the appellants-claimants preferred the petition under section 163-A of the Act, on the basis of 'no fault liability', as per the structured formula in the Second Schedule, the highest slab for the annual income of Rs. 40,000 has to be considered. Therefore, the Tribunal was not in a position to consider the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,00,000 per annum. 5. It is pertinent to point out here that the highest slab of income of Rs. 40,000 p.a. was fixed in the year 1994. It is the bounden duty of the Central Government, as empowered under section 163-A (3) of the Act, to amend the Second Schedule, in view of prevailing cost of living, from time to time. 6. 5. It is pertinent to point out here that the highest slab of income of Rs. 40,000 p.a. was fixed in the year 1994. It is the bounden duty of the Central Government, as empowered under section 163-A (3) of the Act, to amend the Second Schedule, in view of prevailing cost of living, from time to time. 6. It is the specific case of the appellants that the Central Government has miserably failed to bring out any notification in the official gazette to amend the Second Schedule, depending upon the cost of living. Since there was no amendment to revise the slab in the structured formula in the Second Schedule, the Tribunal could not fix the income slab of the deceased more than Rs. 40,000 per annum. However, it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the same even though the Central Government failed to bring out any notification to amend the Second Schedule. Keeping in view the cost of living, the Tribunal should have applied the Consumer Price Index announced by the Government of India from time to time for fixing the compensation. But, the Tribunal failed to consider and apply the cost of living as on the date of accident while determining the compensation under section 163-A of the Act. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered. 7. Among other issues, it has to be examined as to what is the meaning of Consumer Price Index and whether it would be appropriate to apply the same to section 163-A of the Act while fixing the compensation under the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule and also whether the Consumer Price Index is in consonance with the prevailing cost of living to adequately compensate the victims of the motor accident claims. 8. In this regard, let us see the meaning of Consumer Price Index, which is subject to changes in price level of consumer goods and services provided to household. The Consumer Price Index is a statistical estimate constructed by using the prices of sample of representative items, whose prices are collected periodically and sub-indices are computed for different categories and sub-categories of goods and services to produce the overall index with wages reflecting the share in the total of the consumer expenditure covered by the index. The annual percentage change in Consumer Price Index is used as a measure of inflation. The annual percentage change in Consumer Price Index is used as a measure of inflation. Consumer Price Index can be used to index (that is adjusted for the effect of inflation/notification) to determine the real default wages, salary, pensions, for regulating the price and for deflecting and, therefore, the Consumer Price Index is the appropriate index that can be used to determine the income of a person based on the income mentioned in the Second Schedule, which means the income structured formula mentioned in the Second Schedule will be changed every year based on the Consumer Price Index. Therefore, in the present case also, it would be appropriate to apply the Consumer Price Index for the relevant year by taking the annual income mentioned as per the structured formula in the Second Schedule. Be that as it may, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has been issuing notification from time to time, every year, in which the Cost Inflation Index is indicated for determining the capital gain index. 9. Now, let us see, what the Cost Inflation Index is. It is a measure of inflation that finds obligation in tax law, when computing long term capital gains on sale of assets. Section 48 of the Income Tax Act defines the index as what is notified by the Central Government every year, as 75 per cent of the Consumer Price Index for urban non-salaried employees for the immediately preceding previous year. Therefore, if the Consumer Price Index is 100 last year, the Cost Inflation Index will be fixed for the current year at 75. 10. In the present case, the income of the deceased was Rs. 9,00,000 per annum. However, as per the structured formula, for the income during the year 1994, only maximum amount of Rs. 40,000 can be considered as income of the deceased. The said amount of Rs. 40,000 was fixed in the year 1994 and the same cannot be applied in this case, as the accident has occurred on 6.10.2010. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to provide compensation for a person who sustained injury during the year 1994 at a sum of Rs. 40,000 and to apply the same amount of Rs. 40,000 for the victim, who sustained fatal accident during the year 2010. 11. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to provide compensation for a person who sustained injury during the year 1994 at a sum of Rs. 40,000 and to apply the same amount of Rs. 40,000 for the victim, who sustained fatal accident during the year 2010. 11. It is the duty of the Central Government in terms of section 163-A (3) to amend the Second Schedule from time to time according to the Consumer Price Index, which will vary due to inflation. But, the Central Government has not revised or amended the Schedule from time to time as per section 163-A (3). 12. Under the circumstances, this court takes judicial notice of the above facts and decides to give effect to sub-section (3) of section 163-A of the Act to increase the annual income mentioned in Second Schedule, according to Consumer Price Index issued by the Government of India from time to time. 13. Now, the question to be decided is, how to determine the Consumer Price Index in accordance with the income fixed by the Government of India? The Central Board of Direct Taxes has been issuing notifications every year, revising the Cost Inflation Index for the purpose of determining the capital gains. As stated above, the Cost Inflation Index is determined as 75 per cent of the Consumer Price Index of the previous year. The Cost Inflation Index, as issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes since 1982 to 2018, is as follows: Sl. Financial Cost Inflation No. Year Index 1 1981-82 100 2 1982-83 109 3 1983-84 116 4 1984-85 125 5 1985-86 133 6 1986-87 140 7 1987-88 150 8 1988-89 161 9 1989-90 172 10 1990-91 182 11 1991-92 199 12 1992-93 223 13 1993-94 244 14 1994-95 259 15 1995-96 281 16 1996-97 305 17 1997-98 331 18 1998-99 351 19 1999-00 389 20 2000-01 406 21 2001-02 426 22 2002-03 447 23 2003-04 463 24 2004-05 480 25 2005-06 497 26 2006-07 519 27 2007-08 551 28 2008-09 582 29 2009-10 632 30 2010-11 711 31 2011-12 785 32 2012-13 852 33 2013-14 939 34 2014-15 1024 35 2015-16 1084 36 2016-17 1125 37 2017-18 1158 38 2018-19 1191 14. In the above Table, the Cost Inflation Index is mentioned from the years 1981-1982 to 2018-2019. In the above Table, the Cost Inflation Index is mentioned from the years 1981-1982 to 2018-2019. It is pertinent to mention that the Central Government has notified the Consumer Price Index based on the cost of living every year. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has also been issuing Cost Inflation Index by taking 75 per cent of the Consumer Price Index of the previous year for the purpose of calculating capital gains on assets. 15. By adopting the Cost Inflation Index as notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which is 75 per cent of the Consumer Price Index of the previous year, we can work out Consumer Price Index and apply the same to determine the annual income as per the Second Schedule as on the date of accident. For example, by applying the formula as mentioned below, we can determine maximum income per annum for the year 2017-2018, as mentioned hereunder: Income as mentioned x Cost Inflation Index for the year 2017-2018/ in Second Schedule Cost Inflation Index for the year 1994-1995 x 100/75 16. The maximum amount of income per annum for the purpose of determining the compensation is Rs. 40,000 as mentioned in the Second Schedule for the year 1994-1995. If the said amount is taken into consideration by applying the above-mentioned formula the maximum income for the year 2017-2018 is as follows: 1158 100 Rs. 40,000 x _____ x ____ = Rs. 2,38,455 259 75 Rs. 2,38,455 is rounded off to Rs. 2,40,000. Therefore, for the financial year 2017-2018, the sum of Rs. 40,000, as shown in the Second Schedule for the year 1994-1995, should be revised to Rs. 2,40,000. 17. Recently, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Union of India, New Delhi has issued a notification, dated 22.5.2018, amending the Second Schedule, fixing a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 in case of death, which will come with effect from 1.1.2019. We feel, it is not in accordance with the increase in cost of living and the same needs revision, by applying the Consumer Price Index. 18. Since the Central Government has failed to amend the Second Schedule as provided under section 163-A (3), it would be appropriate for this court to apply the above formula, after taking into consideration the cost of living and the Consumer Price Index concerned, while determining the income of the deceased. 18. Since the Central Government has failed to amend the Second Schedule as provided under section 163-A (3), it would be appropriate for this court to apply the above formula, after taking into consideration the cost of living and the Consumer Price Index concerned, while determining the income of the deceased. As long as the Government is not revising the Second Schedule, the court can apply the Consumer Price Index and determine the income. As stated supra in the preceding para, the Government has recently come out with an amendment of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 which will be effected from 1.1.2019, concerning Second Schedule. By applying the Consumer Price Index, the income of the deceased will be much more than Rs. 5,00,000. For example, if a person coming under this category earns Rs. 2,40,000 per annum and dies during the year 2018, due to the carelessness of driving in an accident, he will be entitled for compensation under Second Schedule by applying the Consumer Price Index, in the following manner: The deceased died at the age of 24. His loss of income being a sum of Rs. 2,40,000 + 50 per cent future earnings which comes to a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 in total Rs. 3,60,000 x 18 = Rs. 64,80,000. If he died leaving behind his father, mother, wife and a child, then 1/4th share thereof, i.e., Rs. 16,20,000 will be deducted, in which event, Rs. 48,60,000 will be the loss of income, apart from other compensation. The Government has fixed a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 which is very low. The said compensation cannot be fixed, considering the cost of living from 1994 till date. Hence, the same should be revised. Accordingly, point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered. 19. Coming to the case on hand, the deceased person was earning a sum of Rs. 9,00,000 per annum. To substantiate the same, the appellantsclaimants filed income tax returns, Exh. P10 and Exh. P11, and salary certificate, Exh. P8. By applying section 163-A, as stated above, the maximum amount can be considered as Rs. 2,40,000 and it is not possible to take the entire amount of Rs. 9,00,000. Instead, as per the relevant period of accident coupled with the Cost Inflation Index, the following income has to be arrived at: 711 100 Rs. 40,000 x ______ x ____ = Rs. 2,40,000 and it is not possible to take the entire amount of Rs. 9,00,000. Instead, as per the relevant period of accident coupled with the Cost Inflation Index, the following income has to be arrived at: 711 100 Rs. 40,000 x ______ x ____ = Rs. 1,46,409 259 75 which is rounded off to Rs. 1,50,000. 20. Further, in order to calculate the personal expenses, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC), has observed that if the deceased was married and dependants are three, 1/3rd of the total income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was married and had two children. Therefore, we have to deduct 1/3rd of the total annual income towards personal expenses. 21. Since the appellants-claimants have filed income tax returns of the deceased, as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 (SC), it is just and necessary that 30 per cent is added towards future prospects. On adding 30 per cent, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,95,000 (Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 45,000). 22. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,95,000. Deducting one-third towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per annum works out to Rs. 1,30,000 (Rs. 1,95,000 Rs. 65,000). Since the deceased was aged 48 years, as per the Second Schedule, the proper multiplier to be applied is 13, as per which the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 16,90,000 (Rs. 1,30,000 x 13). 23. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium. In this regard, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 (SC), we re-fix the amount as Rs. 40,000 towards loss of consortium to wife. As no amount was awarded towards loss of love and affection by the Tribunal, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000 each under that caption to appellant-claimant Nos. 2 and 3. Besides, since no amount was awarded by the Tribunal under the heads 'loss of estate' and 'transportation', we award a sum of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively under those heads. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses. 50,000 each under that caption to appellant-claimant Nos. 2 and 3. Besides, since no amount was awarded by the Tribunal under the heads 'loss of estate' and 'transportation', we award a sum of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively under those heads. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses. As held in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court is inclined to increase the said amount to Rs. 15,000 from Rs. 5,000. 24. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants-claimants is arrived at as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this court (1) Loss of dependency Rs. 3,46,671 Rs. 16,90,000 (2) Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000 Rs. 40,000 (3) Loss of love and affection to claimant-appellant No. 2 Nil Rs. 50,000 (4) Loss of love and affection to appellant-claimant No. 3 Nil Rs. 50,000 (5) Loss of estate Nil Rs. 15,000 (6) Transportation Nil Rs. 10,000 (7) Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000 Rs. 15,000 ----------------- ----------------- Total Rs. 3,56,671 Rs. 18,70,000 Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 3,56,671 to Rs. 18,70,000. The total amount of compensation shall be shared by the appellants-claimants in the following manner: Wife of the deceased, who is the appellant-claimant No. 1, shall receive a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 and the son and the daughter of the deceased, who are appellants-claimant Nos. 2 and 3, shall receive a sum of Rs. 4,35,000 each. 25. The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded by this court along with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum is unaltered and the apportionment shall be as ordered by this court. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the amount to the claimants' bank accounts through NEFT or RTGS within a period of one week thereon. The appellants-claimants are directed to pay the requisite court-fee, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the amount to the claimants' bank accounts through NEFT or RTGS within a period of one week thereon. The appellants-claimants are directed to pay the requisite court-fee, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. Before parting, we deem it imperative to mention here that the purpose of the legislature in introducing section 163-A of the Act is to enhance further the purpose of introducing section 140 of the Act. On analogy, one may say how such a huge claim can be awarded without a full-fledged trial? However, it appears that from a catena of decisions and, by experience, the legislature has realized that in cases of pecuniary loss, what is required to be established before the Tribunal is the income and age of the victim and the fact of motor vehicle accident, which is either fatal or has caused injury, with the name of owner and insurer of motor vehicle in an application under section 166 of the Act, a full-fledged trial is held to collect such a data and on collecting such data, compensation is decided after applying multiplier, on determining liability and the extent thereof. The question of liability and extent thereof are not justiciable in application under section 163-A of the Act. As soon as the data is provided, Tribunal can decide compensation on the basis of structured formula and that too instantly. The purpose of the legislature is to see that victims or injured get instant relief so far as the pecuniary loss is concerned, because that loss suffered by them requires instant and immediate relief, maybe, from the next day of the accident. Any delay in grant of such compensation will make their life miserable and may read therein mockery of justice and mockery of Claims Tribunal. It is a common experience that the claim applications are not heard expeditiously and it takes at least 4 to 5 years to decide the same although sincere attempts are made. It is found that in certain cases, it took about 7 years for the Tribunal to decide. It is a common experience that the claim applications are not heard expeditiously and it takes at least 4 to 5 years to decide the same although sincere attempts are made. It is found that in certain cases, it took about 7 years for the Tribunal to decide. It is with such an experience in the backdrop that the legislature appears to have been tempted to introduce section 163-A. Just to achieve the goal referred hereinabove, the legislature has introduced predetermined structured formula to award compensation and the multipliers are arrived at and provided for, with a view to have consistency. 27. The scheme is an alternative to the determination of compensation on fault basis under the Act. The object underlying the said amendment is to pay compensation without there being any long drawn litigation on predetermined formula, which is known as structured formula basis, which itself is based on relevant criteria for determining compensation and the procedure of paying compensation after determining the fault is done away with. Compensation amount is paid without pleading or proof of fault, on the principle of social justice as a social security measure, because of ever increasing motor vehicle accidents in a fast moving society. Further, the law before insertion of section 163-A was giving limited benefit to the extent provided under section 140 for no fault liability and determination of compensation amount on fault liability was taking long time. That mischief was sought to be remedied by introducing section 163-A and the disease of delay was sought to be cured to a large extent by affording benefit to the victims on structured formula basis. Further, if the question of determining compensation on fact liability was kept alive, it would result in additional litigation and complications in case claimants fail to establish liability of the owner of the defaulting vehicles. 28. Section 163-A was introduced in the year 1994. The executive authority of the Central Government has the requisite jurisdiction to amend the Second Schedule from time to time. Having regard to the inflation and fall in the rate of bank interest, it is desirable that the Central Government bestows serious consideration to this aspect of the matter. In other words, the Central Government has been bestowed with duties to amend the Second Schedule in view of section 163-A (3), but it failed to do so for the last 25 years. In other words, the Central Government has been bestowed with duties to amend the Second Schedule in view of section 163-A (3), but it failed to do so for the last 25 years. Therefore, the Central Government has to consider amendment of the Second Schedule to the Act to rectify the mistakes crept therein and rationalise the compensation payable thereunder. 29. Civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, with the above observations and directions. No costs.