Chandan Kumar vs Rajendra Khare and others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—The unfortunate husband of deceased Shaila Meshram is the appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 28.11.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 104/2008. As against the compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, unfortunate husband of deceased Shaila Meshram by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 16.11.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,18,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

The tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant''s'' wife Shaila Meshram died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 16.11.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No. C.G.-07-ZA/0319; as the above offending vehicle Minibus 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 compensation to the claimant.

As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,800/- per month and Rs. 21,600/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs. 21,600/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant''s dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 10,800/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate; and Rs. 5,000/- for loss consortium to the husband, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,18,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of his wife Shaila Meshram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri A.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant''s evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs. 1,800/- per month only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- only.

Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus, on the other hand, contended that as the sole claimant in the case, who is husband of the deceased is in government service and having his own independent income and was not at all dependent on the income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In 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 meagre amount of compensation nor a bonanza.

Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True, the claimant pleaded that his wife Shaila Meshram used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month form tuition, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 7,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant''s evidence about the income of the deceased.

Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,800/- per month in the year 2007 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

The Tribunal while discarding the claimant''s evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed her income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act where-under the Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows:

[163A. 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 - Fro 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, form time to time amend the Second Schedule.

The above quoted Sub-section (3) of Section 163A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule form time to time keeping in view the cost of living.

As the Central Government has failed in amending the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 163A 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.

Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimant''s wife Shaila Meshram lost her life took place in the year 2007. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2007 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would come to at least Rs. 36,000/- per annum in the year 2007. We, therefore propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/- per annum.

As there were only tow members in the family of the deceased i.e. deceased Shaila Meshram and sole claimant Chandan Kumar, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, the claimant''s dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 18,000/- per annum.

Considering the age of the deceased and the claimant; and the other surrounding circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 11 would be appropriate in the present case.

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation works out to Rs., 98,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the husband. The claimant, thus, becomes entitles to receive a total sum of Rs. 2,13,000/- as compensation for the death of his wife Shaila Meshram in the motor accident.

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 claimant is 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.

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 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. 95,000/- at Rs. 10,000/-

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/ - awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,13,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 10,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 95,000/-

Respondent No. 3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,05,000/-(Rs. 95,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 95,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.