Phoolwati and Others vs Pritam Singh and Another

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

This is claimant''s appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranker (henceforth "the Tribunal"), vide award dated 2nd March, 2001 passed in Claim Case No. 40/99.

The claimants, unfortunate children of deceased-Sukhdeo claimed compensation of Rs. 7,72,000/- by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth "the Act") for his death in the motor accident on 07.07.1999 when his bicycle was dashed by the Roadways'' bus bearing registration No. MP-23/0134 resulting in his death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased - Sukhdeo was aged about 35 years and used to earn Rs. 72,460/- per annum from agriculture and by working as a labourer.

The owner and insurer of the bus contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner took the plea that driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident and as the bus was insured on the date of the accident, the liability to pay compensation to the claimants, if any, would be that of the Insurance Company. The insurer of the bus on the other hand pleaded that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and the bus was being plied in breach of the policy conditions.

The claimants examined AW/1 - Phoolwati Bai & AW/2 - Dhaniram in support of their claim, whereas the owner and insurer of the bus did not examine any witness in rebuttal.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.07.1999; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle-bus; and as the bus was insured on the date of the accident with National Insurance Company Limited, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 40 per day and Rs. 1,200/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 1,200/- towards his personal expenses, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 800/- per month and Rs. 9,600/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 9,600/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,44,000/-. By adding another sum of Rs. 9,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed a total sum Rs. 1,53,000/- as compensation. The tribunal deducted a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the compensation assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,53,000/- on account of the lump sum payment of the compensation, and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Sukhdeo in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1 ,35,000/- to the claimants @ 12% per annum, in the event of the insurer''s failure to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of the passing of the award.

Shri Vishnu Koshta & Shri NP Koshta, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 40/- per day and Rs. 1,200/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; in deducting a sum of Rs. 18,0007- on account of the lump sum payment of the compensation; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- only.

Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand supported the award and submitted that the compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

As the Respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased-Sukhdeo died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.07.1999; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle - bus; and the insurer of the bus was liable to pay compensation to the claimants; have now attained finality. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 40/- per day and Rs. 1,200/- per month, as the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not found reliable. In our opinion, if the Tribunal did not find evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased reliable, then, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Act.

The notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum was prescribed in the second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Act in the year 1994. Sub-section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act provides for the amendment of the Second Schedule by the Central Government keeping in view the increase in the cost of living. As the Central Government, inspite of the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living, has not amended the Second Schedule, the Courts are required to take judicial notice of the rise in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living while assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income.

Considering the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and 1999, we are of the opinion that the notional income Rs. 15,000/- per annum prescribed in the year 1994 should be taken as Rs. 18,000/- in the year 1999. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/-perannum.

By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 18,000/- towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency is assessed at Rs. 12,000/- per annum.

Considering the age of the deceased and claimants, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is appropriate in the case. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 12,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out of Rs. 1,80,000/-. By adding the sum of Rs. 9,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- as compensation for the death of their father-Sukhdeo in the motor accident.

Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in the disposal of the claim petition and the appeal and the fact that the insurance Company alone is not be blamed for the delay, we quantity the amount of interest payable to the claimants on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 54,000/-at Rs. 11,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants u/s 173 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,89,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 11,000/-.

Respondent No. 2 - National Insurance Company Limited in granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 65,000/- (Rs. 54,000/-towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 11,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.