1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1388 of 2019 Branch Manager Orieantal Insurance Company Private Ltd. R/o Beside, Icici Bank, Hotel Laxman Avenue, Shahid Park, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1- Ram Dehi Baghel W/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 42 Years R/o Jamkotpara (Dongripara), Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vijay Baghel S/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o Jamkotpara (Dongripara), Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Alok Baghel S/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Jamkotpara (Dongripara), Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sahil Baghel S/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 22 Years R/o Jamkotpara (Dongripara), Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nisha Baghel D/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 20 Years R/o Jamkotpara (Dongripara), Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ankit Baghel S/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 18 Years R/o Jamkotpara (Dongripara), Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant No. 1 To 6), 7 - Parmod Kumar Singh S/o Sugriv Kumjar Singh R/o Near Bhairam Baba Temple Godam Road, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.........(Owner), ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Choubey, Advocate, holding the brief Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 of Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 6 For Respondent No.7 : : Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the award dated 10.04.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar place Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 43/2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of 5,00,000/- with ₹ interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Raju @ Rajkumar Patel. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants had filed an application under Section 163-1 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act, 1988) claiming therein compensation on account of death of Raju @ Rajkumar in motor accident. He would further submit that on the date of accident i.e., 28.05.2016, the deceased himself was driving a truck bearing registration No. AP-16-TX-5427 and in order to save a cow, the truck fell into a canal, and in said accident, he died. 3. It is further submitted that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was amended on 22.05.2018. The learned Tribunal while passing the award applied the amended provision of Section 163-A, though the accident occurred prior to the amendment. He also submitted that the amended provision cannot be applied retrospectively and, therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law; thus, he prays that the impugned award may be set aside. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants supported the award and would submit that the amendment in Section 163-A has been given retrospective effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Haldar [2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983], wherein it has been held that the amended provisions of Section 163-A are applicable even to accidents which occurred prior to 22.05.2018. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that the accident took place on 28.05.2016 and Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 was amended w.e.f. 22.05.2018. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Urmila Haldar (supra), while dealing with this very issue, has categorically held that the amendment to Section 163-A is procedural in nature and intended to extend benefits under the scheme, and therefore would apply even to accidents which occurred prior to 22.05.2018. 8. In view of the judgment, the contention made by counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the amended provision is not acceptable. 9. Considering the above discussed facts in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error of law while awarding compensation in favour of the claimants. 10. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim