Tarni Bai and Others vs Durgesh and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short, ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 18.01.2007, passed in Claim Case No.79/2006.

As against the compensation of Rs.29,00,000/- claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate widow, and minor children of deceased Ramesh Nirmalkar by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 09.04.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued 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; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- only.

Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No-3/ New India 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.

As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Ramesh Nirmalkar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.04.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bus; and as the offending vehicle bus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company 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.

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

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 Ramesh Nirmalkar used to earn Rs.250/- per day by running a laundry shop, 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.

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 which deceased Ramesh Nirmalkar lost his life took place in the year 2006. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and 2006 are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/-in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum.

By deducting the usual l/3rd of Rs.36.000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/-per annum.

Considering that deceased Ramesh Nirmalkar was 36 years of age on the date of the accident, multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs. 3,60,000/-. 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.3,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ramesh Nirmalkar 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 unfortunate accident wherein deceased Ramesh Nirmalkar lost his life took place in the year 2006; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2006; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2007; the present appeal was filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2007; 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 delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- at Rs.20,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fifed 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.3,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.20,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/-.

Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.2,15,000/-(Rs.1,95,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.20,000/-towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.