AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 09.11.2010, passed in Claim Case No.44/2007.
As against the compensation of Rs.39,85,400/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Kannilal Toppo by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 01.01.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation along with interest of Rs.25,000/-.
The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Kannilal Toppo died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.01.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.CG-15-A/3120; as the above offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the United 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 claimants.
As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality.
The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased and the claimants and the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased, awarded lump sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kannilal Toppo in the motor accident. The Tribunal further awarded lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- as interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has fallen into error in not assessing the compensation in the prescribed manner and in awarding ''Lump-Sum'' compensation in the case.
Smt Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus on the other hand contended that the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal.
As we have noticed a growing tendency of the Tribunals awarding ''Lump-Sum'' compensation even in death cases, we deem it necessary to sound a note of caution to the Judicial Officers, presiding Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.
Ordinarily, in motor accident claim cases and more particularly in death cases, the compensation has to be assessed in the prescribed manner of first assessing the income of the deceased; then the claimants'' dependency by deducting appropriate amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased; and then to multiply the annual dependency with the appropriate multiplier for assessing the just and proper compensation payable to the claimants.
In the case of ''Lump-Sum'' compensation, neither the parties to the claim case nor the appellate Court can find out from the award as to on what criterion/basis the ''Lump-Sum'' compensation has been assessed by the Tribunal. It is therefore, always necessary that the criterion/basis of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal should be apparent from the award itself.
In the present case, as the Tribunal has not assessed the compensation in the prescribed manner and Rs.4,00,000/ has been awarded as ''Lump-Sum'' compensation, we propose to re-compute the compensation in the prescribed manner.
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.
The claimants pleaded that deceased Kannilal Toppo used to earn Rs.8,400/- per month from agriculture; working as Mason; and from his Agency work, but 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.8,400/- per month.
As the claimants have failed in establishing the income of the deceased pleaded by them, we deem it proper to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
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 unfortunate accident wherein deceased Kannilal Toppo lost his life took place in the year 2007. If the increase in the prices of 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 certainly come to Rs.36,000/ in the year 2007. We, therefore, propose to assess 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/- per annum.
Deceased Kannilal Toppo was shown to be 27 years of age in the claim petition as well as in his postmortem report. The dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 prescribes multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26-30 years. In our opinion, multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case.
By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/ with the multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.4,08,000/-. 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.4,23,000/- as compensation for the death of Kannilal Toppo in the motor accident.
The claimants are further awarded Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.23,000/-.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,23,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.23,000/-.
Respondent No.1 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.25,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send/circulate this order to all the Members of the Higher Judicial Service for necessary action.