Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010002392016 2026:GAU-AS:10256 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./854/2018 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI VERSUS SMTI. HIRAMONI BORO W/O - LATE RAJESH BORO 2:MISS SONIA BORO D/O LT. RAJESH BORO 3:SRI JINTU BORO S/O LT. RAJESH BORO ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL- DONGPAR P.O. BARIMAKHA P.S. BARBARI DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM RESPONDENT NOS. 2 and 3 BEING MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1. CLAIMANTS 4:SRI GANESH BASUMATARY S/O LT. SANTHALA BASUMATARY R/O VILL- NO. 1 SILAKUTI P.S. BARBARI DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01AW- 3229 ZYLO PRIVATE LM Page No.# 2/13 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the Appellant : Ms. M. Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R. De, Advocate (For respondent Nos. 1 to 4) : Mr. F. A. Hassan, Advocate (For respondent No. 5/Owner) Date of Hearing : 05.05.2026 Date of Judgment : 24.07.2026 JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 2. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant, United India Insurance Company Limited, impugning the judgment and award dated 19.08.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari, in MAC Case No. 398/2014, whereby the present appellant/Insurance Company was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.10,66,000/- along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 3. The facts relevant for the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 21.07.2014, at about 5:20 PM, one Rajesh Boro, who was the husband of the claimant No. 1 and father of the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 was driving a Zylo vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-AW-3229. When the said vehicle reached Page No.# 3/13 Barimakha Chowk, in order to save a pedestrian, the vehicle met with an accident and went off the road as a result of which the driver of the vehicle, namely, Rajesh Boro, sustained serious injuries on his person. He was immediately taken to Mushalpur PHC and thereafter to Barama PHC and from there to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital. He was also shifted to the GNRC Hospital and thereafter again to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital. However, on 03.08.2014, said Rajesh Boro succumbed to his injuries. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, namely, United India Insurance Company Limited. A police case, namely, Barbari P.S. Case No. 30/2014 under Sections 279/338/304(A) IPC was also registered in connection with the aforesaid accident. 4. Thereafter, the present respondents/claimants approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari, by filing an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for death of their husband/father in the aforementioned motor vehicular accident. The present appellant as well as the owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim of the claimants by filing separate written statements. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari: - “(i) Whether Rajesh Boro the husband of the claimant No.1 and the father of the claimant No.2 and 3 died on 03-08-2014 at about 3:50 p.m., at GMCH as a result of injuries sustained by him due to use of the offending vehicle? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation as prayed for and if so, to what extent and from whom? Page No.# 4/13 (iii) To what other relief or reliefs the claimants are entitled to?” 6. In support of their claim, the claimants adduced the evidence of claimant No. 1 and also exhibited certain documents. The Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence in their defence. Ultimately, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the judgment which has been impugned in this appeal has allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation to the claimants/respondents in the manner as described in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. 7. Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari has erred in awarding compensation of Rs.10,66,000/- to the claimants ignoring the fact that the claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He submits that in view of the amendment to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act by virtue of the notification dated May 22, 2018, issued by Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section(3) of Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the compensation ought to have been payable as per the amended Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He submits that though the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended by virtue of the aforesaid notification on 22nd May, 2018 and though in the instant case, the accident occurred much before that, i.e., on 21.07.2014, however, he submits that since the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not a part of substantive law, but is a procedural law, there is no difficulty in holding that new schedule is to be made applicable for claim cases which are alive either before the Tribunal or pending for adjudication before High Courts in appealirrespective of date of accident involved in those Page No.# 5/13 cases. 8. 8. He submits that the new amendment will not be applicable only to those cases which have attained finality of awards upon acceptance by parties of the Tribunaldetermination made therein. He submits that the new amended Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for a fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees FiveLakhs) in case of fatal accident resulting into the death of a third party as happened in this case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited following rulings: - (i) “The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Urmila Halder’ reported in “2024 Supreme (SC) 1860” (ii) “Urmila Halder Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited” reported in “2019 STPL 6893 Calcutta” (iii) “National Insurance Company Limited Vs.Bijaya Bhuyan and Others” reported in “2018 (5) GLT 72”. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding compensation on a higher side against the conventional heads like funeral expenses, pain and suffering and loss of consortium as well as for loss of love and affection of minor children. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi” reported in “(2017) 16 SCC 680” has standardized the quantum of compensation to be awarded against conventional heads in a motor accident claims case. 10. He submits that against the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the compensation amount of Page No.# 6/13 Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- has been recommended by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment with a rider that said amount should be enhanced at the rate of ten percent in every three years. He submits that the said direction of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case ought to have been implemented in the instant case also and there is no scope of increasing the same by any vertical or horizontal proliferation as has been done in some cases by courts having bench strength of lesser number than that of the bench which decided the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). He, therefore, submits that the compensation granted against loss of dependency ought to have been made at flat Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as per the amended Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He also submits that compensation granted against funeral expenses should be reduced to Rs.15,000/- and no compensation ought to have been granted against pain and suffering. Similarly, compensation granted for loss of consortium should be decreased to Rs.40,000/- and no compensation ought to have been granted against loss of love and affection for minor children as well as to the wife of the deceased, namely, the claimant No. 1. He, accordingly, submits that the compensation granted to the claimants may accordingly be computed and modified in terms of submissions made by him. 11. On the other hand, Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari has rightly computed the compensation awarded to the claimants after taking into consideration all relevant materials on record as well as applicable law. He submits that since the application for compensation filed by the claimants was under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal was correct in applying pre-amended Second Schedule for computing the Page No.# 7/13 compensation. He submits that since the accident had occurred in the year 2014, i.e., much prior to when the newly amended Second Schedule was notified on 22nd May, 2018. 12. He submits that every piece of legislation is to be made applicable prospectively unless it is expressly or by necessary implications made to have a retrospective effect. He submits that in the notification dated 22nd May, 2018, there is no indication of same being given any retrospective effect and as such, the newly amended Second Schedule cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case, which is prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “M/s Shakti Tube Limited Vs. State of Bihar and others”, reported in “(2009) 7 SCC 673”. 13. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents further submits that even if the claimants are not granted any compensation for loss of love and affection, they are entitled to get compensation on account of loss of consortium, both spousal consortium as well as parental consortium as well as against other conventional heads like loss of estate and for funeral expenses in terms of the Apex Court rulings in this regard. He, therefore, submits that the compensation granted to the claimants under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act should not be reduced and this appeal should be dismissed. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. Page No.# 8/13 15. In this case, the accident in which the husband of the claimant No. 1, namely, Rajesh Boro expired, had occurred on 21.07.2014 i.e., much prior to the amendment of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act brought about by the notification dated 22nd May, 2018. 16. The question as to whether after the amendment brought about by the aforesaid notification, the new schedule would be applicable to pending claim applications under Section 163 A before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as the appeals arising out of the award delivered thereunder prior to May 22nd, 2018 has been settled by the High Court of Calcutta in the case of “Urmila Halder Vs. National Insurance Company Limited” (supra) and it was held that while deciding pending claim applications/appeal post 22nd May, 2018, the new schedule ought to be applied by Tribunals as well as courts for determining compensation payable to the heirs of an accident victim or the victim themselves, regardless of whether the new schedule is beneficial to them or not. This finding of the High Court of Calcutta has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of “New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Urmila Halder”(supra). 17. It is pertinent to mention herein that the High Court of Calcutta in the aforesaid judgment held that Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has both substantive and procedural aspects. It observed that that part of sub- Section (1) of Section 163 A which confers the right on legal heirs to bring an action against the owner of the offending motor vehicle or authorized insurer thereof for compensation is substantive law, while the means by which enforcement of right to receive compensation can be attained i.e., determination of compensation by the Tribunal as indicated in Second Schedule is procedural Page No.# 9/13 law. In other words, while substantive part of law confers the right, procedural part of law provides for the relief. 18. Thus, in view of above discussion, this Court is of considered opinion that the compensation awarded to the claimants in the instant case ought to have been computed in accordance with the new Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as notified by the notification dated 22nd May, 2018, which provides for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) payable in case of death. 19. The next question which arises in this appeal is whether in a claim case under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation may be awarded against conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, etc. 20. This court is of considered opinion that since the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation taking care of need to pay just compensation to the victims of road traffic accident, the provisions of this Act has to be interpreted in the manner which would further the interest of such victims. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that the claimants are also entitled to get compensation against the conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate, etc. 21. As regards payment of compensation on account of loss of consortium, the Supreme Court of India has observed in the case of “Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram” reported in “(2018) 18 SCC 130” as follows: - “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Page No.# 10/13 Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the survivingspouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world- over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss Page No.# 11/13 of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in RitaRana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.” 22. In view of above, this Court is of considered opinion that the claimant No. 1 is entitled to get compensation on account of loss of spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/-, whereas, other two claimants who are the children of the deceased are also entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each against loss of parental consortium. However, they will not be getting separate compensation on account of loss of love and affection as well as for loss of pain and suffering. The funeral expenses to which the claimants are entitled shall be Rs.15,000/- as Page No.# 12/13 well as another Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Pranay Sethi” (supra). 23. In view of above discussion, the total compensation to which claimants are entitled is computed as follows: - (i) Compensation for death of husband/father of the claimants as per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988= Rs.5,00,000/-, (ii) Funeral expenses= Rs.15,000/-, (iii) Compensation on account of loss of estate=Rs.15,000/-, (iv) Compensation for loss of spousal/parental consortium to each of the claimants at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each= Rs.1,20,000/-, (v) Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on the deceased= Rs.2,20,000/- (vi) Total= Rs.8,70,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Thousand). 24. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Thousand) on account of death of their husband/father in the vehicular accident. The said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 25. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining outstanding dues against the compensation awarded to the claimants before the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. 26. On such deposit by the Insurance Company, same shall be disbursed by the Registry to the claimants after proper verification. Page No.# 13/13 27. The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal shall be returned back to the appellant after proper verification. 28. Let the records of MAC Case No. 398/2014 be sent back to the concerned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment. 29. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Abhishek Prem Digitally signed by Abhishek Prem Date: 2026.07.27 18:11:30 +05'30'