Mohd. Ramzan Khan and Others vs Virendra Singh and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 25.8.2011 passed in Claim Case No. 123/2009. As against the compensation of Rs. 13,50,000 claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents, sisters and brother of deceased Rahman Khan, by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 13.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 72,000 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 deceased Rahman Khan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.11.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. 1 C.G. 04-G/7752; as the above offending vehicle truck, on the date of the accident, was insured with the Oriental 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.

As the insurer of the above offending vehicle truck has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above findings recorded by the Tribunal, the same now have attained finality.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000 per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 5,000 per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 5,000 with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 50,000. By awarding further sum of Rs. 22,000 under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 72,000 as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rahman Khan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 72,000 @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, 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; in deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 72,000 only.

Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 72,000 awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals 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. 72,000 awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Rahman Khan used to earn Rs. 5,000 per month as mechanic in a private mill and the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs. 15,000 per annum on the basis of the notional prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Section 163A of the Act whereunder 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 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 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 163A 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 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 deceased Rahman Khan lost his life took place in the year 2008. If the increase in the prices of the 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 recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000 per annum.

The deduction of 2/3rd of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses requires reconsideration 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,

Considering that deceased Rahman Khan was unmarried on the date of the accident, we deem it appropriate 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 v. Mohammed Jameel and Another (supra), and Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra). The claimant''s dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 18,000 per annum by deducting 50% of Rs. 36,000 towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

As the claimants are parents, sisters and brother of deceased Rahman Khan, the multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal is 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, .

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 Rahman Khan 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 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. 1,18,000 at Rs. 12,000.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 72,000 awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,90,000 with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 12,000 on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,18,000.

Respondent No. 3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle truck is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,30,000 (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) (Rs. 1,18,000 towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 12,000 towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,18,000) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.