1 CGHC010250812021 2026:CGHC:36098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 567 of 2021 Vimla Yadav W/o Late Gokul Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Ruabandha (Bhatapara) Ward No. 23, P. S. Sector-6, Bhilainagar, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. M/s Orissa Bangal Carrier Limited Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of Trailor. 2. Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur Through The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., G. E. Road, Chouhan Estate, First Floor, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh................Insurer Of Trailor 3. Jeevan Yadav S/o Gokul Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 63, P. S. Sector-6, Kotwali, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Motorcycle 4. Rajhans Singh S/o Siyaram Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Aryanagar, Near Sheetla Talab, Kohka, Ward No. 9, P. S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, Advocate, Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.08.17 11:03:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (13.08.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 02.08.2021 passed by learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 28/2019, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,21,500/- as compensation for the death of Gokul Yadav, who died in a road accident that took place on 26.06.2018. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the accident occurred on 26.06.2018, i.e. after the amended Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 came into force with effect from 22.05.2018. Under the amended Second Schedule, a fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is payable in case of death. It is, therefore, submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of only Rs.3,21,500/-. Learned counsel, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Urmila Halder1, submits that the claimant is 1 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 3 entitled to a fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under the amended Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due circumspection. 5. The short question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the claimant is entitled to compensation in terms of the amended Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. 6. The Central Government, issued Notification S.O.2022(E) dated 22.05.2018, whereby the Second Schedule to the Act of 1988 was substituted. Under clause 1(a) of the amended Second Schedule, in case of a fatal accident, the compensation payable on account of death has been fixed at Rs.5,00,000/-. The said Notification came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. 7. In the case of Urmila Halder (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme 4 Court considered the effect of the aforesaid amendment to the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the enhancement of compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- and observed that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit being passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the amendment only clarified the computational mode and modality of compensation and did not interfere with the substantive liability of the insurer. 8. In the present case, the accident occurred on 26.06.2018, i.e. subsequent to the coming into force of the amended Second Schedule on 22.05.2018. The claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. Therefore, the compensation in respect of the death of Gokul Yadav is required to be determined in accordance with the amended Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. In terms of clause 1(a) thereof, the claimant is entitled to a fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 9. Consequently, the compensation of Rs.3,21,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The remaining conditions 5 of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai