1 2025:CGHC:34239 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 153 of 2022 Divisional Manager The United India Insurance Company Ltd. 5 Star Complex, Near Lovely Hotel, Power House Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Through In Charge, T.P. Hub, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Lic Bulding, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. … Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Nirmala Yadav W/o Late Shri Dinesh Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Ghotwani, P.S. Dhamdha Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aarti Yadav D/o Late Shri Dinesh Yadav Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Nirmala Yadav W/o Late Dinesh Yadav, R/o Village Ghotwani, P.S. Dhamdha Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tulesh Yadav S/o Late Shri Dinesh Yadav Aged About 5 Years R/o Village Ghotwani, P.S. Dhamdha Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.07.22 10:46:48 +0530 2 4 - Khilesh Yadav S/o Late Dinesh Yadav Aged About 4 Years R/o Village Ghotwani, P.S. Dhamdha Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Kumari Yadav W/o Krishna Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Ghotwani, P.S. Dhamdha Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Krishna Yadav S/o Late Moti Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Ghotwani, P.S. Dhamdha Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 7 - Hitesh Kumar S/o Ashwani Kumar R/o Village Ahiwara, P.S. Nandini Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 8 - Ankit Bafna, R/o Nandani Chowk, Near Petrol Tank Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 18.07 .2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 31/08/2021 modified by order dated 29/09/2021 passed by Learned 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 3 297/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal initially awarded a sum of Rs. 5,15,000/- to the claimants applying the amended 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, however, on an application filed by the claimants for correction of arithmetical error in computing the award, passed the modification order and modified the award from Rs. 5,15,000/- to Rs. 5,75,000/-. 2. It is the case of the appellant that on 02/08/2017, the respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants, who are wife, children and parents of deceased Dinesh Kumar Yadav, respectively, filed the application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs. 16,90,000/- and thereafter, an amendment was made in the 2nd Schedule enacted under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 which came into effect on 22/05/2018 and though the accident occurred on 04/07/2016, but the Claims Tribunal applied the amended provisions of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,15,000/- which was later modified to Rs. 5,75,000/- ignoring the fact that the accident had happened much prior to the date of coming into force of the amendment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the amended 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 as the 4 amendment was effective from 22/05/2018 and it could not be applied retrospectively in respect of a cause of action which arose on 04/07/2016 which is much prior to the date of coming into force of the notification, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondents, though served. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submission and perused the record. 6. The question for consideration in this appeal is, whether learned Claims Tribunal was justified in applying the amendment carried out in the 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 in the instant case and granting compensation to the claimants accordingly when the accident occurred prior to the date of coming into force of the said amendment ? 7. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder1 may be noticed herein profitably wherein it has been held as under :- “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. 1 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 5 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 Rs. 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.” 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra) and in view of the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, though the accident is said to have occurred on 04/07/2016 and the application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 was preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants on 02/08/2017, but the Claims Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- as compensation as per the amendment made in the 2nd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 w.e.f 22/05/2018, which in my considered opinion is just and proper and does warrant any interference by this Court, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Urmila Halder (supra), a beneficial legislation would entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal. 6 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet