Rewati Bai and Others vs Bodhan Thakur and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, (for short, "the Tribunal'') vide award dated 30.10.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 13/2005.

The Appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Homan Singh Mandavi claimed compensation of Rs. 19,25,000/- by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short:, ''the Act''), for his death in the motor accident on 10.11.2004 when the Metador beating registration No. C.G. 04ZB/0121 in which he was travelling as a labour met with an accident and over-turned due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resulting in multiple serious injuries to Homan Singh Mandavi who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari. The claimants pleaded that deceased Homan Singh Mandavi used to earn Rs. 150/- per day as Porter (Hamal).

The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Metador did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex parte.

The insurer of the offending vehicle Metador contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle Metador was not holding a valid driving licence and the Metador was being plied in breach of the policy conditions.

The claimants examined AW 1 Rewati Bai and AW 2 Vijay Kumar in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador did not examine any witness in rebuttal.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Homan Singh Mandavi died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.1/1.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador; and as the offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

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 163-A of the Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 10,000/-with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Homan Singh Mandavi in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri Sanjeev Banjare, 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. 15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- only.

Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri R Dutta, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

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

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 meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza.

Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Homan Singh Mandavi used to earn Rs. 150/- per day by working as Porter (Hamal) on the Metador, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. 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 at Rs. 15,000/- per annum is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

Notional Income of Rs. 15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The accident in the present case wherein deceased Homan Singh Mandavi lost his life took place in the year 2004.

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

163-A. 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 -- 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 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 accident in the present case, wherein deceased Homan Singh Mandavi lost his life took place in the year 2004. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between the year 1994 and the year 2004, 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/- per annum in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/- per annum.

By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs. 36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants dependency is assessed at Rs. 24,000/-.

Considering that deceased Homan Singh Mandavi was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , wherein the multiplier of 16 is prescribed for the age group between 31 years to 35 years.

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs. 3,84,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 3,99,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Homan Singh Mandavi in the motor accident.

Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties 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.

The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Homan Singh Mandavi lost his life took place in the year 2004; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2005; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2006; the present appeal was filed by the Appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2006; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors 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. 2,19,000/- at Rs. 21,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,99,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 21,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 2,19,000/-.

Respondent No. 3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rs. 2,19,000/-towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 21,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 2,19.000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.