1 2026:CGHC:14969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2254 of 2019 1 - Rakesh Kumar Koushik S/o Arjun Koushik Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Tada, Post OfÏce Tada, Thana - Kota, District - Bilaspur ChhatÝsgarh., District : Bilaspur, ChhatÝsgarh 2 - Smt. Anju Bai W/o Rakesh Kumar Koushik Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Tada, Post OfÏce Tada, Thana - Kota, District - Bilaspur ChhatÝsgarh., District : Bilaspur, ChhatÝsgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Bhuvneshwar Prasad Koushik S/o Arjun Lal Koushik Aged About 27 Years Occupation - Driver, R/o Village - Tada, Post OfÏce Tada, Thana - Kota, District - Bilaspur ChhatÝsgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Auto No. C.G. 10/ B. Y. / 6059) ., District : Bilaspur, ChhatÝsgarh 2 - Deepak Koushik S/o Motilal Koushik, R/o Tada, Ward No. 4 Aawaspara, Thana - Kota, District - Bilaspur ( C.G.) (Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Auto No. C.G. 10/ B. Y. / 6059) ., District : Bilaspur, ChhatÝsgarh HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.02 10:53:31 +0530 2 3 - Rayol Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Sundaram Towers 46 Vhit Road Roypettah Chennai 600014 Regional Manager, Rayol Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Regional OfÏce - Raja Chambers OfÏce No. 306 Near 3rd Floor Mowa Over Brize Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur ChhatÝsgarh. Through Branch Manager, Rayol Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Rama Trade Center 1st Floor In Front Of Rajeev Plaza. Old Bus Stand Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur ( C.G.) ( Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Auto No. C.G. 10/ B. Y. / 6059) ., District : Bilaspur, ChhatÝsgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani on behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocates For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate MAC No. 1746 of 2019 1 - Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Raja Chambers OfÏce No. 306 3rd Floor, Near Mova Over Bridge Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur ChhatÝsgarh ............(Insurer), District : Raipur, ChhatÝsgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Rakesh Kumar Kaushik S/o Arjun Kaushik Aged About 30 Years R/o Tada, Post OfÏce Tada, P. S. Kota, District Bilaspur ChhatÝsgarh District : Bilaspur, ChhatÝsgarh 3 2 - Smt. Anju Bai W/o Rakesh Kumar Kaushik Aged About 28 Years R/o Tada, Post OfÏce Tada, P. S. Kota, District Bilaspur ChhatÝsgarh District : Bilaspur, ChhatÝsgarh 3 - Bhuvneshwar Prasad Kaushik S/o Arjun Lal Kaushik Aged About 27 Years R/o Tada, Post OfÏce Tada, P. S. Kota, District Bilaspur ChhatÝsgarh , District : Bilaspur, ChhatÝsgarh 4 - Deepak Kaushik S/o Motilal Kaushik R/o Tada, Post OfÏce Tada, P. S. Kota, District Bilaspur ChhatÝsgarh, District : Bilaspur, ChhatÝsgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani on behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocates SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 01.04.2026 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both of these appeals and since they have arisen out of a common accident, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 4 2. MAC/2254/2019 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants whereas MAC/1746/2019 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 30/03/2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 451/2018 whereby compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimants for the death of Prashant Kaushik, aged about 5 years, and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 3. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellant/claimants in MAC/2254/2019 would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side, therefore, it may suitably be enhanced. 4. Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC/1746/2019, would submit that the accident occurred on 19/03/2018 whereas the amendment to 2nd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 22/5/2018, thus, it could not have been given retrospective effect and as such, the compensation is liable to be reduced. 5. Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, learned counsel for the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in both the cases, would support 5 the impugned award and submit that the instant appeals are liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the record. 7. The issue involved in these appeals is no longer res integra. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder1 may be noticed herein profitably wherein it has been held 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 22nd 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. 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.” 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), in the present 1 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 6 case, though the accident is said to have occurred on 19/03/2018, but the Claims Tribunal has rightly granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the amendment made in the 2nd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 which came into force w.e.f. 22/05/2018, as it has been held by the Supreme Court in Urmila Halder (supra), 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. I do not find a good ground to interfere with the impugned award. 9. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet