1 2025:CGHC:56572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 727 of 2022 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin 492010 (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Dhaneshwari Bai W/o Shambhuram Sahu, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Chivari,tahsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shambhuram Sahu S/o Kedarnath Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Chivari, Tahsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mohd. Anjar Ahmad S/o Mohd Ilahi Ansari, R/o House No. C 20 Dhaneli Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.21 11:09:33 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 20.11.2025 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 19/03/2021 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Link Court Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 140/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal, while allowing the claim application filed by the claimants under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,72,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 01/10/2018 in favour of the claimants and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that as per the 2nd Schedule to Section 163A of the Act of 1988 and as per the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Deepal Girishbai Soni and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda1, the yearly income of the deceased could not exceed 1 (2004) 5 SCC 385 3 Rs. 40,000/- whereas the Claims Tribunal has erred in taking the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 72,000/-, as such, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be reduced. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants would fairly submit that since 2nd Schedule to Section 163A of the Act of 1988 came into force w.e.f. 22/05/2018 and is retrospective in nature, a fixed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- ought to be awarded by the Claims Tribunal in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Urmila Halder2. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Deepal Girishbai Soni (supra), have concluded in paragraph 67 and held as under :- “67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala3 has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000 per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose 2 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175 4 annual income is up to Rs 40,000 can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII o the Act.” 6. In the instant case, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- which amounts to Rs. 72,000/- yearly, however, considering the amendment incorporated under 2nd Schedule to Section 163A of the Act of 1988, which came into force w.e.f. 22/05/2018, is retrospective in nature as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), therefore, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified and the claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from 01/10/2018. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet