JUDGMENT : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. The appellant/claimant had preferred application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “Act of 1988”) before the 2 nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) claiming compensation to the extent of Rs.90,40,000/- along with 18% interest against respondents herein alleging the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/- per month. 2. The claimants before the Claims Tribunal has stated that deceased Chintanand, who was the son of the appellant herein, was driving the offending vehicle/truck bearing Registration No. CG – 08/AL – 1757 and on account of mechanical failure of break, the accident was occurred, wherein the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 herein has taken a plea that the deceased was in the state of intoxication while driving the offending vehicle/truck and, therefore, it was being plied in breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy and, as such, the claimant is not entitled for compensation. Before the Claims Tribunal, it could not be proved by the respondents herein that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy, however, the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim application of the claimant citing that the yearly income of the deceased was Rs.2,40,000/- which is more than income provided under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, i.e. Rs.40,000/-, against which this appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. G.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, would submit that in view of the Notification dated 22 nd 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 Rs.5,00,000/- and in support of his submission he would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assuarance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983] in which it has been held that the Notification dated 22 nd May, 2018 would also apply to the accident occurred prior to the issuance of the said notification and in the instant case the accident was occurred on 25.01.2018. 4. Mr. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983] in which it has been held that the Notification dated 22 nd May, 2018 would also apply to the accident occurred prior to the issuance of the said notification and in the instant case the accident was occurred on 25.01.2018. 4. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, would submit that the income of the deceased was Rs.2,40,000/- which is more than income provided under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, i.e., Rs.40,000/-, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application of the appellant herein and the instant appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 6. In the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda , [ (2004) 5 SCC 385 ] the Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 can be invoked, if the annual income of a person is Rs.40,000/- per annum and observed as under:- “67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala 2001 ACJ 827 (SC), has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) 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 annual income is upto Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.” 7. This Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sumitra Bai and others , [MAC No.619/2004; decided on 06.12.2013] has held that merely on the basis of pleading it cannot be held that annual income of deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- and observed in paragraph No.8 as under:- “8. This Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sumitra Bai and others , [MAC No.619/2004; decided on 06.12.2013] has held that merely on the basis of pleading it cannot be held that annual income of deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- and observed in paragraph No.8 as under:- “8. The Claims Tribunal, after due enquiry, has clearly recorded a finding that the annual income of deceased was Rs.15,000/- per annum and said finding has not been challenged by Insurance Company in this appeal and same has attained finality, therefore, merely on the basis of pleading in the application that cannot be held that annual income of deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. Therefore, Claims Tribunal has rightly entertained and granted the application filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act assessing the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and there is no illegality in the impugned award.” 8. In the instant case also the Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 of the appellant herein, on the ground that the income of the deceased as pleaded to be Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.2,40,000/- per annum, and the same was accepted, as it is, and the Claims Tribunal did not proceed to assess the yearly income of the deceased and also failed to notice the vital aspect of the matter in light of the Scheduled annexed to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, which has been amended on 22 nd May, 2018, wherein it has been provided that in case of death, the compensation payable under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 would be Rs.5,00,000/-. 9. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 163A of the Act of 1988 which reads as under:- “163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub- section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.” 10. Notification dated 22 nd May of 2018 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 xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. Now, the question for consideration would be whether Notification dated 22 nd May, 2018 would have retrospective effect as the accident in the instant case has taken place on 25.01.2018, whereas, the Notification with regard to amendment in the Schedule annexed with Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 fixing the compensation in the death case has come into effect on 22 nd May, 2025 by which in the death case the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 would be payable to Rs.5,00,000/-. 12. In the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have framed the aforesaid question for determination in paragraph No.4 and answered in paragraph No.10. Paragraphs No.4 & 10 state as under:- 4. The short point for consideration before this Court is whether the amendment in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , which came into effect by a Gazette Notification on 22 nd May, 2018, would relate to an accident which had occurred prior to the said date. 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. 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. 13. In the aforesaid decision, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the Notification dated 22 nd May, 2018 would also apply to any accident occurred prior to 22 nd May, 2018. As such, in light of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above–stated decision, Notification dated 22 nd May, 2018 would also apply in the present case as in the instant case the accident occurred prior to coming of the said notification i.e. on 25.01.2018. In that view of the matter, the impugned award is set aside to the extent of rejecting claim application of the claimant/appellant herein and in view of Notification dated 22 nd May, 2018, the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded to the dependent of deceased Chintanand claimant/appellant herein along with 6% interest from the date of filing of application i.e. 07.01.2021. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal within 45 days from today and that will be disbursed to claimant by the Claims Tribunal. 14. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Claims Tribunal forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.