1 CGHC010318802022 2026:CGHC:37226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1120 of 2022 1 - Deepak Kumar Manikpuri S/o Gurudev Prasad Manikpuri Aged About 28 Years Occupation-Driver Of Vehicle R/o Village-Qwater No. 107 R.D.A. Colony Heerapur Post Tatibandh, Thana Aamanaka Tahsil And, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - B.N. Shri Nivash S/o B. Aanand Rao R/o Shantoshi Nagar, Thana Tikrapara Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Royal Sundaram Alliances Insurance Company. Ltd. Branch Manager Branch Office Chawala Complex Meja 9th Flour Sai Nagar Devendra Nagar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (19.08.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the impugned award dated 15.06.2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 132/2013, Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.08.20 10:18:44 +0530 2 whereby the Claims Tribunal, while allowing the claim application filed by the claimant under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, has awarded compensation of Rs. 8,82,739/- with interest @7% per annum from 14.07.2011 in favour of the claimant and the liability for payment of the compensation has been fastened upon respondent No. 2/insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding inadequate compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the claimant/appellant was a driver and due to injury in the accident dated 20.12.2008 his left leg got amputated and is not able to drive any vehicle. It is, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Insurance company submits that since 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 came into force w.e.f. 22.05.2018 and is retrospective in nature, fixed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in death case) ought to be awarded by the Claims Tribunal in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Urmila Halder1. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 1 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 3 5. In the present case, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was instituted by the appellant. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,82,739/- to the claimant/appellant for his injuries. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement. Notably, no cross-appeal or cross- objection has been preferred by the insurance company. Having evaluated the statutory framework under the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, and the principles articulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned award for the purpose of enhancement. 6. Accordingly, the instant appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- SD Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu