Riyasat Ali And Anr. vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Station Road

2. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants, seeking enhancement, is that the deceased was a 19-year-old boy and the only child of the appellants, who are the parents. It is further urged that the Tribunal has not appropriately considered the compensation to be awarded and has granted only a meager sum. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the Act, 1988 underwent an amendment and as a consequence, in terms of Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, a composite lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been provided for. Since the change in law occurred during the pendency of the appeal, it can be taken into account by this Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, which is co-extensive with that of the Tribunal. Hence, the compensation deserves to be enhanced.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the date of the accident is material to determine the rights 2 FAFO No. 864 of 2012 of the parties and the law as applicable will be the one which was prevalent at that time. On the date of the accident, Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 did not provide for a lump sum fixed compensation. In the given facts and circumstances, noting that the deceased was 19-year-old boy, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-, which cannot be said to be unjust so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are being noticed as under :

6. That deceased, Amir Raza, the only son of the claimants/appellants, was 19 years of age and a student of Class XI. He had also undergone vocational training with his father and was working as a carpenter. On the fateful day of 19.12.2009, at around 6:00 a.m., while boarding a bus bearing registration No.UP-30A-5384, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the vehicle forward, as a result of which the deceased fell and the rear tyre of the bus ran over him, causing his death on the spot.

7. A claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 was filed. Upon the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues. After permitting the parties to lead evidence, the claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- along with 6% interest per annum was awarded vide award dated 01.04.2011.

8. At the outset, it is noted that there is no cross-appeal or cross-objection on behalf of the respondents. In view thereof, the findings recorded by the Tribunal, insofar as the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award is concerned, are not under challenge and have attained finality.

9. The only issue that now remains to be considered is whether the award made by the Tribunal is just and proper.

10. The core issue for consideration is whether the amended provision of Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, which came into force during the 3 FAFO No. 864 of 2012 pendency of this appeal, can be applied to enhance compensation.

11. This issue need not detain this Court for long as the question has already been considered by this Court in Smt. Poonam Gupta W/o Late Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Arun Kumar Mishra S/o Indrasen Mishra : 2019 SCC Online All 6786, wherein it was held as under :- "19. The entire premise upon which the new Schedule has been amended gives no reason to doubt that as far as death cases are concerned one lump sum amount is to be granted upon which the claimants may be entitled to the interest, however, apart from the lump sum, there is no scope to grant any further amount towards the non- pecuniary damages as it would be seen that earlier in the second schedule an amount was mentioned towards grant of non-pecuniary damages even though meager which in certain decisions of the Apex Court was termed as redentant and now with the new substitution of the IInd Schedule as per the amendment of 2018, there is no provision for grant of any sum towards non-pecuniary damages. The legislature has introduced the amendment after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and if wanted to provide for non-pecuniary damages it could have provided so in the schedule, however, it has not been done and it appears to be purposefully to provide one composite amount as lump sum in case of fatal accidents and injury cases covered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and to make the grant of amount of compensation relevant in today's scenario.

20. Thus, in view of the above, this Court provides that the appellant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the application till the date of its actual payment. Any amount already paid by the Insurance Company to the appellants shall be adjusted from the aforesaid sum and the claimants shall be entitled to the balance thereof.

12. This proposition has subsequently been followed by this Court in Satya Prakash Pathak vs. Munni Lal Maurya : MANU/UP/1199/2025, Guddu and others vs. State of U.P. : 2024 ACJ 1353 and Raisul Hasan vs. M/s S.K. Carrier Kanpur Thru. Manager and others : MANU/UP/0887/2025.

13. In view of the settled position, this Court is of the view that, once the provisions of Section 163-A of Act, 1988 have been amended, the appellants are entitled to the benefit thereof.

14. Accordingly, in view of the decision in Smt. Poonam Gupta (supra), this Court provides that the appellants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per 4 FAFO No. 864 of 2012 annum, as awarded by the Tribunal.

15. Any amount already paid by the Insurance Company to the appellants shall be adjusted from the aforesaid sum and the remaining amount, along with up-to-date interest, shall be paid to the appellants/claimants within sixty (60) days from today.

16. In view of the above, the award dated 01.04.2011 passed in Claim Petition No.22 of 2010 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Sitapur is modified to the above extent and the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

17. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. September 12, 2025 Shubhankar (Jaspreet Singh,J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants, seeking enhancement, is that the deceased was a 19-year-old boy and the only child of the appellants, who are the parents. It is further urged that the Tribunal has not appropriately considered the compensation to be awarded and has granted only a meager sum. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the Act, 1988 underwent an amendment and as a consequence, in terms of Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, a composite lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been provided for. Since the change in law occurred during the pendency of the appeal, it can be taken into account by this Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, which is co-extensive with that of the Tribunal. Hence, the compensation deserves to be enhanced.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the date of the accident is material to determine the rights 2 FAFO No. 864 of 2012 of the parties and the law as applicable will be the one which was prevalent at that time. On the date of the accident, Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 did not provide for a lump sum fixed compensation. In the given facts and circumstances, noting that the deceased was 19-year-old boy, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-, which cannot be said to be unjust so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are being noticed as under :

6. That deceased, Amir Raza, the only son of the claimants/appellants, was 19 years of age and a student of Class XI. He had also undergone vocational training with his father and was working as a carpenter. On the fateful day of 19.12.2009, at around 6:00 a.m., while boarding a bus bearing registration No.UP-30A-5384, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the vehicle forward, as a result of which the deceased fell and the rear tyre of the bus ran over him, causing his death on the spot.

7. A claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 was filed. Upon the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues. After permitting the parties to lead evidence, the claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- along with 6% interest per annum was awarded vide award dated 01.04.2011.

8. At the outset, it is noted that there is no cross-appeal or cross-objection on behalf of the respondents. In view thereof, the findings recorded by the Tribunal, insofar as the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award is concerned, are not under challenge and have attained finality.

9. The only issue that now remains to be considered is whether the award made by the Tribunal is just and proper.

10. The core issue for consideration is whether the amended provision of Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, which came into force during the 3 FAFO No. 864 of 2012 pendency of this appeal, can be applied to enhance compensation.

11. This issue need not detain this Court for long as the question has already been considered by this Court in Smt. Poonam Gupta W/o Late Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Arun Kumar Mishra S/o Indrasen Mishra : 2019 SCC Online All 6786, wherein it was held as under :- "19. The entire premise upon which the new Schedule has been amended gives no reason to doubt that as far as death cases are concerned one lump sum amount is to be granted upon which the claimants may be entitled to the interest, however, apart from the lump sum, there is no scope to grant any further amount towards the non- pecuniary damages as it would be seen that earlier in the second schedule an amount was mentioned towards grant of non-pecuniary damages even though meager which in certain decisions of the Apex Court was termed as redentant and now with the new substitution of the IInd Schedule as per the amendment of 2018, there is no provision for grant of any sum towards non-pecuniary damages. The legislature has introduced the amendment after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and if wanted to provide for non-pecuniary damages it could have provided so in the schedule, however, it has not been done and it appears to be purposefully to provide one composite amount as lump sum in case of fatal accidents and injury cases covered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and to make the grant of amount of compensation relevant in today's scenario.

20. Thus, in view of the above, this Court provides that the appellant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the application till the date of its actual payment. Any amount already paid by the Insurance Company to the appellants shall be adjusted from the aforesaid sum and the claimants shall be entitled to the balance thereof.

12. This proposition has subsequently been followed by this Court in Satya Prakash Pathak vs. Munni Lal Maurya : MANU/UP/1199/2025, Guddu and others vs. State of U.P. : 2024 ACJ 1353 and Raisul Hasan vs. M/s S.K. Carrier Kanpur Thru. Manager and others : MANU/UP/0887/2025.

13. In view of the settled position, this Court is of the view that, once the provisions of Section 163-A of Act, 1988 have been amended, the appellants are entitled to the benefit thereof.

14. Accordingly, in view of the decision in Smt. Poonam Gupta (supra), this Court provides that the appellants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per 4 FAFO No. 864 of 2012 annum, as awarded by the Tribunal.

15. Any amount already paid by the Insurance Company to the appellants shall be adjusted from the aforesaid sum and the remaining amount, along with up-to-date interest, shall be paid to the appellants/claimants within sixty (60) days from today.

16. In view of the above, the award dated 01.04.2011 passed in Claim Petition No.22 of 2010 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Sitapur is modified to the above extent and the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

17. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. September 12, 2025 Shubhankar (Jaspreet Singh,J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench