1 2025:CGHC:41945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 135 of 2022 1 - Beerendra Manjhi S/o Vijay Kisno Manjhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Borgaon, Post Borgaon, Tahsil Farasgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Jharna Manjhi W/o Beerendra Manjhi Aged About 35 Years R/o - Village Borgaon, Post Borgaon Tahsil Farasgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kalichand Das S/o Rasraj Das R/o Purwiborgaon, Police Station Kondagaon, Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nation Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager/divisional Office, Address National Insurance Company Limited, Jagadalpur, Tahsil And District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate For respondents No.2 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.20 15:08:06 +0530 2 19.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 14/01/2021 passed by learned Upper Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 86/2012, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,51,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Balram Manjhi. 2. Relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 19/03/2008 at about 04:30 PM, deceased Balram Manjhi, who worked as a Driver, was driving Mahindra Commander Jeep bearing Registration No. CG – 18/D-0342 and was taking the vehicle along with owner’s family from village Hirri to village Maalakot but near village Bhaanpuri, the right rear tyre of the vehicle got burst due to which the vehicle lost control and collided with the bridge due to which deceased Balram Manjhi suffered grievous injuries in various parts of the body and he was taken to the Hospital wherein he was declared permanent disabled and was completely bedridden and ultimately, died on 07/08/2010. The 3 appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 and in second round of litigation, the Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 4,51,500/- in their favour. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case as though the accident happened on 19/03/2008 and deceased Balram Manjhi died on 07/08/2010 but the Claims Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment could have awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- by applying the amendment in Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, which came into effect on 22/05/2018, with retrospective effect in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder1. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would support the impugned judgment and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 1 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 4 6. The question for consideration in this appeal is, whether learned Claims Tribunal ought to have applied the amendment carried out in the 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 w.e.f. 22/5/2018 in the instant case and could have granted 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 Halder2 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. 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.” 2 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 5 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), in the present case, though the accident is said to have occurred on 9/03/2008 and deceased Balram Manjhi died on 07/08/2010 and the application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 was preferred by the appellants/claimants on 17/02/2011, but the Claims Tribunal ought to have granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the amendment made in the 2nd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 w.e.f 22/05/2018, as it has been held by the Supreme Court in Urmila Halder (supra), 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. As such, the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,51,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 4,51,500/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 48,500/-. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal 6 i.e. 17/02/2011 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet