1 2025:CGHC:60018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1227 of 2018 Smt. Mithleswari @ Pooja, W/o. Late Ankush Thakur, Aged About 23 Years, R/o. Satnami Para, Near Bharat Mata School, Tatibandh, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Claimant) --- Appellant versus 1 - Suresh Kumar, S/o. Kuver Lal Dreathlehare (Owner Of The Motor Cycle Bearing No. C.G. 05/G-2507) R/o. Gundai, Tehsil- Choui Khdan, P.S. Gundai, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through- Divisional Manger, Divisional Office No. 1, Kachhari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ghyansham Patel, Advocate & ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.12.11 17:22:51 +0530 2 MAC No. 1415 of 2018 Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Manager , Division Office No. 1 Kachhari Chowk, Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through- Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office Rama Trade Center, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Mitheleshwari @ Pooja, W/o. Late Ankush Thakur, Aged About 23 Years, R/o. Satnamipara Near Bharatmata School Tatibandh, Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Suresh Kumar, S/o. Kunwar Lal Dhritlahre, R/o. Gandai, Tehsil Chuikhadan, Police Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghyansham Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate (S.B.) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 10.12.2025 1. MAC No.1415 of 2018 has been preferred by the Insurance Company seeking exoneration from its liability to pay the compensation amount; whereas MAC No.1227 of 2018 has 3 been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Claim application under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been filed by the claimant for death of her husband Ankush Thakur, who was driving the offending motorcycle and died on 20.05.2014 in whcih the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,17,600/- as compensation holding that the deceased did have a valid & effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. 4. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid & effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant, would submit that by virtue of amended Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, which came into effect from 22.05.2018, the compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court 4 in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder1 the amended Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 would be applied to retrospective effect. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded very meager amount looking to the facts of the case, therefore, the appeal of claimant be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 7. The Claims Tribunal has recorded categorical finding after appreciating the oral & documentary evidence on record that the deceased driver did have a valid & effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding. 8. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra) held in para 10 as under : “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 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983 5 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.” 9. Therefore, the amended Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 would be applied in the present case, as the same has retrospective effect in light of the principles of law laid down in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra). Since the deceased was driver, he was not borrower or owner of the vehicle, the claimant would be entitled for a fixed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with increase of 5% annually from 1st January, 2019. The compensation amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 6 10. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok