C/FA/613/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 613 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== NASIMBANU HANIFBHAI KHOD & ORS. Versus DINESHBHAI LABHSHANKARBHAI TRIVEDI & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR BRIJ V SHETH(10594) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 03/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.  This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment   and   award   dated   28.10.2021   passed   by   the   Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.1219 of 2016. The claimant has filed a cliam   petition   under   Section   163-A   of   the   Motor   Vehicle   Act whereby   compensation   awareded   Rs.3,24,500/-   along   with interest @ 9% per annum. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent No.1. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 11.02.2016 at about 8:00   p.m.,   the   deceased,  Hanifbhai Kasambhai Khod,   was C/FA/613/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 driving   Car   No.  GJ-3AK-8494  on   the   Samakhyali–Bhachau Highway. When he reached near Sahyog Hotel, the car collided with   the   rear   side   of   an   unknown   vehicle   moving   ahead, resulting   in   a   serious   accident. Hanifbhai   Kasambhai   Khod sustained   grievous   injuries   and   subsequently   succumbed   to those injuries during treatment. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has awarded a lesser amount of compensation. It is submitted that the appeal is filed mainly on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error   in   not   properly   considering   the   dependency   as   per   the settled structure, and has also erred in applying the multiplier. If the   age   of   the   victim   is   considered   as   it   is,   the   appropriate multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. It is submitted that the amounts  awarded  under the heads  of loss  of estate  and funeral   expenses   are   also   on   the   lower   side. Therefore,   the learned advocate for the appellant prays for enhancement of the compensation. 5. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-insurance company has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the multiplier has been correctly applied,  as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC C/FA/613/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 121. Therefore,   this   Court   may   not  interfere   with   the  award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration the entire material on record and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeal may be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, it is true that the claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles   Act,   under   Schedule   II. As   per   the   Schedule, compensation  is  required  to  be awarded  on the  basis  of the structured formula, without considering negligence or any other factors. Where   the   annual   income   is   taken   as   Rs.40,000/-, compensation   must   be   calculated   accordingly   by   deducting dependency as provided under Schedule II of the MV Act, 1988. The Tribunal, however, has not awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, and to that extent, the Tribunal has committed an error. However, after the amendment to the MV Act, 2019, Section 164 has been inserted, which prescribes the amount of compensation in cases of death or   grievous   hurt,   and   in   the   case   of   death,   the   minimum compensation prescribed is Rs.5,00,000/-. Although the claim petition in the present case was filed prior to the amendment, i.e., in the year 2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, 2025 SCJ 244, has upheld the grant of Rs.5,00,000/- even in petitions filed under Section 163-A prior to the amendment, treating the legislation as beneficial   and   noting   the   absence   of   any   specific   bar   to C/FA/613/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 retrospective application. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is partly allowed. As the deceased lost his life, the claimants are entitled to a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Urmila Halder (supra), the award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby modified, and   the   compensation   is   enhanced   from 3,24,500/-   to ₹ ₹5,00,000/-. .  Respondent – Insurance Company shall deposit the   said   additional   amount   of  Rs.1,75,500/- along   with interestat the rate of 9% per annum, before the Tribunal within a period   of  four weeks from   the   date   of   receipt   of   this   order. Record   and   proceedings   be   remitted   back   to   the   concerned Tribunal forthwith. 8. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 9. Award to be drawn accordingly. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/12/2025 17:40:04