Prabhari Adhikari The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch v. Smt. Man Pyari

Versus 1 - Smt. Man Pyari W/o Late Dhaneshewar Nag Aged About 21 Years Cast Nagvanshi R/o Beldegi ,thana And Tahsil Pattahlgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Sumit Kumar S/o Late Dhaneshwar Nag Aged About Age 7months Through Guardian Mother Smt. Man Pyari ,w/o Late Dhaneshwar Nag .Cast Nagvanshi R/o Beldegi ,thana And Tahsil Pattahlgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manoj Kumar Nag S./o Shankar Nag Aged About 19 Years Cast Nagvanshi R/o Beldegi ,thana And Tahsil Pattahlgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kamal Sai S/o Shankar Nag Aged About 18 Years Cast Nagvanshi R/o Beldegi ,thana And Tahsil Pattahlgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Minor Santosh Kumar Nag S/o Shankar Nag Aged About 6 Years Through Guadian Father Shankar Nag Cast Nagvanshi R/o Beldegi ,thana And Tahsil Pattahlgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shankar Nag S/o Birbal Nag Aged About 43 Years Cast Nagvanshi R/o Beldegi ,thana And Tahsil Pattahlgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Santri Bai W/o Shankar Nag Aged About 38 Years Cast Nagvanshi R/o Beldegi ,thana And Tahsil Pattahlgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Pitram Dadsena S/o Jagannath Dadsena Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 10,basuladipa ,areket Road Basna ,thana Basna District 2 Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 493554 (Driver O Tractor No. Cg 06 E 5119 And Trolley No. Cg 06 E 5120), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 9 - Arjun Nayak S/o Pancham Aged About 18 Years R/o Ankori Tada Tehsil Basna District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Tractor No. Cg 06 E 5120), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 10 - Kamal Kumar Jaiswal S/o Revachand Jaiswal R/o Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh C/o Sunil Agrawal Age 50 Years R/o Ludge Near Bus Stand Thana Patthalgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Bolero Pickup No. Cg 13 La 0683), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Sunil Agrawal S/o Matadin Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Ludeg Near Bus Stand Thana Patthalgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Physical Possession Holder Of Bolero Pickup No. Cg 13 La 0683), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Prearna Agrawal Advocate on behalf of For Appellant Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

05.08.2026 (Order on Board)

#1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 03.10.2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,85,500/- to the claimants and liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

#2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the amended 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 and awarding a sum of Rs.5,85,500/- to the claimants and further the driver-cum-deceased was also not having valid and effective driving license to ply the offending vehicle on the 3 date of accident and, therefore, learned tribunal also erred in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company. Thus, the present appeal be allowed.

#4. None appeared on behalf of the respondents, though served. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submission and perused the record.

#5. The first plea that has been putforth on behalf of the appellant is that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the same. However, the learned tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the insurance company failed to prove/establish by leading clinching evidence that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the same and, therefore, fastened the liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company. The aforesaid finding record by the learned tribunal is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and I do not find any illegality in it. It is held accordingly.

#6. The next question for consideration in this appeal is, whether learned Claims Tribunal was justified in applying the amendment carried out in the 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 in the instant case and granting compensation to the claimants accordingly when the accident occurred prior to the date of coming into force of the said amendment ?

#7. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the 4 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 in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra) and in view of the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, though the accident is said to have occurred on

27.06.2012 and the application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 was preferred by the claimants on 27.11.2017, but the Claims Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.5,85,500/- as compensation as per the amendment made in the 2nd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 w.e.f 22/05/2018, which in my considered opinion is just and proper and does warrant any interference by this Court, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Urmila Halder (supra), a beneficial legislation would entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. As such, I do not find any 1 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 merit in this appeal. 5

#9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). s@if sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge