1 2025:CGHC:32372 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1419 of 2018 1 - Baisakhiya Bai Sahu W/o Murli Sahu, Aged About 55 Years 2 - Murli Sahu S/o Late Mahetter Sahu, Aged About 58 Years 3 - Chandra Prakash Sahu S/o Late Gowardhan Sahu, Aged About 6 Years Appellant No.3 is minor through legal guardian Grand Father Murli Sahu Aged About 58 Years S/o Late Mahetter Sahu. All R/o Near Water Tanki Ashok Nagar Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants versus I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Commercial Bhawan Devendra Nagar Road Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh...(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 28/b./4844). ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 11.07.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.139/2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.16 13:10:57 +0530 2 allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 09.12.2015, Smt. Santoshi Bai (since deceased) along with her husband Goverdhan was returning from village Kaushalpur to Sargaon on motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-28/B/4844, when they reached Main Road of Chandrakhuri Rest House, the motorcycle went into a ditch, due to which, Smt. Santoshi Bai fell down and suffered grievous injuries over her person and died. 3. The claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on various heads. 4. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal while relying upon the various case laws, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,10,200/- along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the primary liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation 3 in the facts and circumstances of the case, which needs to be enhanced suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- can be granted in the death case according to new Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Reliance has been placed upon the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Halder reported in 2025 ACJ 244 to buttress his submissions. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 8. The New Second Schedule of 163-A of M.V. Act is reproduced below for easy reference:- “THE SECOND SCHEDULE (Section 163A) FOR COMPENSATION FOR THIRD PARTY FATAL ACCIDENTS/INJURY CASES CLAIMS (a) Fatal Accidents: Compensation payable in case of Death shall be five lakh rupees. (b) Accidents resulting in permanent disability: Compensation payable shall be = [Rs. 5,00,000/- W percentage disability as per Schedule I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923)] : Provided that the minimum compensation 4 in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. (c) Accidents resulting in minor injury: A fixed compensation of twenty five thousand rupees shall be payable: On and from the date of 1st day of January, 2019 the amount of compensation specified in the clauses (a) to (c) of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent annually. 3. This notification shall come into form on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.” 9. In the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the similar issue and held as follows :- “4. The short point for consideration before this Court is whether the amendment in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect by a Gazette Notification on 22nd May, 2018, would relate to an accident which had occurred prior to the said date. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the law which was amended would come into force prospectively, which is a normal rule of interpretation and there being no retrospectively indicated in the amendment itself, the same has to be construed in a harmonious manner giving effect to each and every word. 5 6. Reliance was placed on the last line of the notification, which indicates that the said amendment would come into force from the date of publication in the official Gazette, which is 22nd May, 2018. It was submitted that as the accident had occurred on 11th December, 2004, the benefit of such amendment could not be granted to the respondent. In support of this contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon various decisions of this Court in Padma Srinivasan Vs. Premier Insurance Company Limited, [(1982) 1 SCC 613]; Shyam Sunder and Others vs. Ram Kumar and Another, [(2001) 8 SCC 24]; Nasiruddin and Others Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, [(2003) 2 SCC 577] and Panchi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, [(2009) 2 SCC 589]. 7. It was further contended that the present case is covered by the policy under which the payment is made and the same crystallized on the date the same was entered into and subsequent developments would not alter the rights and liabilities of the parties. Thus, the contention was that the appellant would not be liable to pay any further than what it was obliged to pay under the Act prior to coming of the amendment on 22 nd May, 2018. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has rightly taken a view that it is merely a procedural amendment which has to be given 6 retrospective effect and it is nothing substantive so as to affect the merits of the issue. 9. Having considered the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. With regard to the judgments of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, having gone through the same we find that they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus, the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case. 10. The order of the High Court is well discussed and we agree with the view taken. We may, however, add that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. In the present case, the liability of the appellant- Insurance Company has not been interfered with. Only the computational mode and the modality have been further clarified, which rightly has been noted by the High Court and accordingly, the claim has been enhanced to ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). As 50% of the compensation amount was stayed by this Court, the same be paid to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment within eight weeks.” 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,10,200/- as total 7 compensation. According to the new Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, in fatal accidents, the compensation payable in case of death shall be Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed. 11. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh