1 MAC No. 252 of 2023 2025:CGHC:60577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 252 of 2023 1.Uma Devi Wd/o Bhaskar Sai Paikra, Aged About 24 Years, Occupation Housewife; 2.Minor Samir Paikra S/o Bhaskar Sai Paikra, Aged About 6 Years; 3.Minor Mahi Paikra D/o Bhaskar Sai Paikra, Aged About 02 Months; Above minor appellants No.2 & 3 through legal natural guardian mother Uma Devi. 4.Gurwari Bai W/o Sita Ram Sai, Aged About 55 Years; 5.Sita Ram Sai S/o Sudhu Sai, Aged About 60 Years; All are R/o Village Jhimki, P.S. Bagbahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1.Mahendra Kumar Paikra S/o Ana Singh Paikra, Aged About 50 Years, caste Kanwar, R/o Village Jhimki, P.S. Bagbahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2.Branch Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.12.12 19:02:36 +0530 2 MAC No. 252 of 2023 For Appellant :- Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 12.12.2025 1.Heard on I.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2.On due consideration, application is allowed and the delay of 1425 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned as the appellants are the resident of village Jhimki, Police Station Bagbahara, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, which is a remote village of District Jashpur and they are not aware about the legal proceedings. 3.With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants 3 MAC No. 252 of 2023 seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Additioanl Claims Tribunal of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 17/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application filed under Section 163A of the Act, 1988 and awarded a sum of 5,19,500/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Bhaskar Sai Paikra. 5.Mr. Sushobhit Singh, 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 which is liable to be enhanced suitably. 6.Mr. Vikas Patel, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.2, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is 4 MAC No. 252 of 2023 just and proper which does not call for any interference. 7.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and gone through the records meticulously. 8.The Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding the that the deceased was not the owner of the offending vehicle and did have the valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. 9.However, in view of the Notification dated 22nd May, 2018, issued by the Government of India (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) in death cases in the Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, the family of the deceased would be entitled for total compensation of 5,00,000/- with increase of 5% ₹ 5 MAC No. 252 of 2023 annually from 1st January, 2019. The said notification has the retrospective effect in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assuarance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder 1 in which it has been held that the Notification dated 22nd May, 2018 would also apply to the accident occurred prior to the issuance of the said notification and observed 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 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. 10. Therefore, in view of the principle of law laid down in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), the amended Second Schedule of Section 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983 6 MAC No. 252 of 2023 163-A of the Act of 1988 would be applied in the present case as the same has retrospective effect and in the instant case the accident was occurred on 27.09.2017. 11. As such, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a fixed compensation ₹5,00,000/- with increase of 5% annually from 1st January, 2019. The compensation amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as awarded by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed off and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit