Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-218-2023 2025:CGHC:44751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 218 of 2023 [Arising out of order dated 11.11.2022, passed in Claim Case No.110/2019 (Smt. Mamata Kashyap and others vs. Amarnath Chandra and another) by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG)] 1 - Smt. Mamta Kashyap W/o Late Shri Dileep Kashyap Aged About 53 Years R/o House No. 18/2859, Near Water Tank, Ward No. 32, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shubham Kashyap S/o Late Shri Dileep Kashyap Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 18/2859, Near Water Tank, Ward No. 32, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Atul Kashyap S/o Late Shri Dileep Kashyap Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 18/2859, Near Water Tank, Ward No. 32, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Ku. Namrata Kashyap D/o Late Shri Dileep Kashyap Aged About 19 Years R/o House No. 18/2859, Near Water Tank, Ward No. 32, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants Versus 1 - Amarnath Chandra S/o Shri Bhesajram Chandra Aged About 28 Years R/o Near Sahu Bhawan, House Of Chunnilal, New Purena, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-218-2023 (C.G.) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg/04/hu/7249) 2 - The Branch Manager Iffco-Tokia General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Second Floor, M.M. Silvar Plaza, Infront Of Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg/04/hu/7249) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Judgment on Board) 02.09.2025 1. The appellants/claimants who are the wife, sons and daughter, respectively, of deceased- Dileep Kashyap, who died in motor accident occurred on 21.05.2018 while driving the offending vehicle i.e. Motor-Cycle bearing No.CG-04-HU-7249, which was owned by the respondent No.01 and insured by the respondent No.02, had preferred application under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “Act of 1988”) before the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) claiming compensation to the extent of 15,50,000/- along with 12% ₹ interest, against respondents herein alleging the monthly income of the deceased to be 3,300/-. However, the Claims Tribunal ₹ Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-218-2023 has rejected the claimants’ application for grant of compensation citing that the monthly income of the deceased was 17,050/- ₹ along with 5% D.A., and, therefore, the yearly income of the deceased 2,04,600/-, which is more than income provided ₹ under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 i.e. 40,000/- against ₹ which the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim application of the appellants/claimants. She vehemently argued that apart from the owner and the insurance company, the deceased was the third party and merely because the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner it cannot be a ground to reject the claim application of the claimants that too when he was having valid and effective license to drive light motor vehicle. Even otherwise, in view of Notification dated 22nd May, 2018, issued by the Government of India (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) in death cases as per Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, the family of the deceased would be entitled for total compensation of 5,00,000/-, which ₹ would also apply to the accident occurred prior to the issuance of the said notification in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder 1 , and in the instant case the accident occurred on 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983 Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-218-2023 21.05.2018. As such, the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation on account of death of deceased- Dileep Kashyap to the tune of 5,00,000/- alongwith interest from the date of ₹ filing of the claim application. Hence, the appeal be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and support the impugned award and also prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records precisely. 5. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar it would be appropriate to notice Notification dated 22nd May of 2018, which provides as under:- SCHEDULE FOR COMPENSATION FOR THIRD PARTY FATAL ACCIDENT/INJURY CASES CLAIMS 1. (a) Fatal Accidents:- Compensation payable in case of Death shall be five lakh rupees. xxx xxx xxx xxx 6. True it is that in the instant case, the accident of deceased Dileep Kashyap was occurred on 21.05.2018 while driving the offending vehicle i.e. Motor-Cycle bearing No.CG-04-HU-7249, Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-218-2023 which was owned by the respondent No.01 and insured by the respondent No.02, due to which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants herein, who are wife, sons an daughter of the deceased, filed claim application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal which was rejected by the Claims Tribunal though the deceased was having valid and effective license to ply light motor vehicle. Further, in the present case the accident took place on 21.05.2018 and, though at that time, notification dated 22nd May of 2018 was not in force, however, in light of principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), Notification dated 22nd May, 2018 would have retrospective effect and, therefore, said Notification would also apply in the present case. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 11.11.2022, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside to the extent of rejecting claim application of the claimants/appellants herein and in view of Notification dated 22nd May, 2018, the compensation of 5,00,000/- is awarded to ₹ the dependents of deceased – Dileep Kashyap i.e. claimants/appellants herein along with 6% simple interest from the date of filing of application before the Claims Tribunal i.e. 25.01.2019. Since the said offending vehicle was insured with Page No.6 of 6 IN MAC-218-2023 respondent No.02, respondent No.02- Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the said amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal within 60 days from today and, thereafter, the learned Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the amount of compensation in accordance with law expeditiously. 8. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Claims Tribunal and appellants/claimants for information and necessary action, if any. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if