Smt. Phulan Bai and Others vs Mohammad Gulab and Others

Hon''ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 14.05.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 116/2009. As against the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Balakram, by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 12.05.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- 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 Balakram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.05.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck/Tanker bearing registration No. C.G.07-ZC/0677; as the above offending vehicle Truck/Tanker, on the date of the accident, was insured with the National 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/Tanker 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. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,000/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,28,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 12,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Balakram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri P.R. Patankar and Shri Kunal Das, 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. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 8; in awarding low sum of Rs. 12,000/- under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1.40,000/- only.

Shri G.V.K. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Q. Aziz, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck/Tanker, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- 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 meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 1.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Balakram used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month by working in a private company, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing his income to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- 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.

The Tribunal while discarding the claimants'' 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 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Section 163A of the Act where-under 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 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 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 in which deceased Balakram lost his life took place in the year 2009, If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2009 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs. 36,000/- in the year 2009. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum.

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

The Tribunal in para 12 of the impugned award has held that deceased Balakram, on the date of the accident, was in the age group of 55-60 years. The claimants in their claim petition categorically mentioned that deceased Balakram was aged about 56 years. Thus, the deceased admittedly was in the age group between 56-60 years. The dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , prescribes the multiplier of 9 for the age group between 56-60 years. In our opinion, multiplier of 9, therefore, would be appropriate in the case.

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of 9 the compensation works out to Rs. 2,16,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 2,31,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Balakram in the motor accident.

The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 91,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,31,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 10,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 91,000/-.

Respondent No. 3 the National insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- (Rupees one lakh one thousand only) (Rs. 91,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 91,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.