Jagarnath vs Nandlal Prasad Gupta

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—The unfortunate parents of deceased Maniram are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 20.07.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 26/2003. As against the compensation or Rs. 27,10,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Maniram, by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.06.2003. the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 the claimants'' son Maniram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.06.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Auto-rickshaw (Pick-up van) bearing registration No. JH-01/C- 7155; as the above offending vehicle Auto-rickshaw (pick-up-van) 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 condition, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Auto-rickshaw (pick-upVan) has not filed any appeal against the impugned award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 750/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs 750/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs 500/- per month and Rs. 6,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 6,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 90,000/- By awarding further sum or Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Maniram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri A.K. Prasad and Shri Rishi Mohabia, 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 assessing his income at Rs. 750/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- only.

Shri Shallendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Auto-rickshaw (Pick-up Van), on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True, the claimants pleaded that their son Maniram used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month by working as Rickshaw Puller and labour, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased.

Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal ar Rs. 750/- per month in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

The Tribunal while discarding the claimants'' the 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 (for short ''the Act'').

Section 163-A of the Act where -under the second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follow :

[163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. - (1) Not with standing 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 purpose 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 subsection (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.

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..

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.

Now reverting to the present case, the unfortunate accident wherein the claimants'' son Maniram lost his life took place in the year 2003. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2003 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. 30,000/- in the year 2003. We therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per annum.

Considering that deceased Maniram 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. Mohd. Jameel and Another, and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, The claimants'' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs. 30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, , where in it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10.

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 15,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,50,000/- 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 or Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Maniram 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 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.

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. 60,000/- at Rs. 10,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,60,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 10,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 60,000/-

Respondent No. 3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum or Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) Rs. 60,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 60,000/-) before the concerning claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.