Bombay High Court
Farzanabee Naimeemoddin And Ors vs Illiyas Khan Rahmat Khan And Anr on 20 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:16865
FA-286-2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.286 OF 2013
1. Farzanabee W/o Naimeemoddin,
Age : 30 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Wangi Road, Parbhani,
Tq & Dist: Parbhani.
2. Naijimoddin S/o Naimeemoddin,
Age: 18 years, Occu: Education,
3. Nadimoddin S/o Naieemoddin,
Age: 17 years, Occu: Education,
4. Samiroddin S/o Naieemoddin,
Age: 14 years, Occu: Education,
5. Tanviroddin S/o Naimeeoddin,
Age: 13 years, Occu: Education,
Applicants no. 3 & 5 minor under
guardianship of real mother Applicant no.1.
6. Nasiroddin S/o Fakiroddin,
Dead and represented by appellant
No.1 to 5 as legal heirs. ... Appellants
(Orig Claimants)
Versus
1. Illiyas Khan Rahmat Khan,
Age: 48 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Khatik Pura, Murtizapur,
District : Washim.
(Owner of Motor Cycle No. MH-30-T-3906)
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Through Manager,
Parbhani, Dyawan Complex,
Parbhani, Tq & District: Parbhani. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. P. S. Agrawal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. P. C. Mayure, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
.....
FA-286-2013
-2-
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 06 APRIL 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 20 APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order passed by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1 & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani in M.A.C.P. No. 31 of 2007, by which claim petition under section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act set up by heirs of Naimeemoddin was dismissed by judgment and award dated 26.04.2010.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the claim petition are, that the deceased Naimeemoddin was a pillion rider on a motorcycle on 21.12.2006, which was given dash by an unknown vehicle. Crime was registered against unknown vehicle. Heirs of Naimeemoddin filed claim petition initially under section 166 of M.V. Act, but later on got it converted under section 163-A of M.V.Act and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is their specific pleadings that deceased was a kerosene dealer and also an employee of Nizam Construction and earned Rs.6,000/- per month.
Taking note of the provision under which the claim petition was filed and further noticing that the alleged income of FA-286-2013 -3- deceased exceeded Rs.40,000/-, i.e. to the tune of Rs.70,000/- per annum, the claim petition was dismissed as income exceeded the cap of Rs.40,000/- as provided under section 163A of M.V. Act.
Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the above dismissal, claimants have come up by way of present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for original claimants would point out that, accident suffered by deceased was of 21.12.2006. That, claimants filed above claim petition on 29.01.2007. That, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim on technical ground i.e. income of deceased exceeding Rs.40,000/- cap as prescribed under II Schedule of 163A of M.V. Act. He pointed out that, primarily reliance has been placed by the learned Tribunal in the Judgment of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 2107. However, according to him, no distinct issue was primarily framed by learned Tribunal about maintainability of claim under section 163A of M.V. Act, even when respondent Insurance Company has failed to raise any issue about maintainability of claim petition under section 163A of M.V. Act.
4. He would next submit that, the learned Tribunal also failed to consider and appreciate that the initial claim was set up by invoking section 166 of M.V. Act, but was later on got converted FA-286-2013 -4- under section 163A of M.V. Act.
5. He further submitted that, it needs to be noted that, section 163A of M.V. Act was deleted in May 2018, and therefore, it ought to have been considered whether new Schedule could be made applicable to the pending claim or even appeal arising out of the awards delivered prior to May 2018.
6. Elaborating on above submissions, it is his contention that, recently the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Urmila Halder v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. , (2019) 1 ACC 3, after an elaborate discussion concluded that the amended Act is applicable with retrospective effect. He further hastened to add that, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6260 of 2019 has affirmed the above view of Calcutta High Court. He further pointed out that, even, this Court (Nagpur Bench) in First Appeal No. 32 of 2011 in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Gayatri Nitin Lutade had enhanced the compensation granted to the claimants and this Court has recorded a view that provision under section 163A of amended Act are effective retrospectively.
7. Thus, he would conclude by submitting that considering the view of Calcutta High Court being affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex FA-286-2013 -5- Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder (supra), he urges to allow the appeal by granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
8. Opposing the above submissions, learned counsel Shri Deshmukh would support the order of learned Tribunal pointing out that, once claimants and on their own accord, have invoked section 163A of M.V. Act, and as annual income of deceased disclosed by heirs was exceeding Rs.40,000/- per annum, learned Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the claim. According to him, section 163A of M.V. Act is not retrospective and in support of his such contention, he seeks reliance on the judgment of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in First Appeal No.1002 of 2004 in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sudamati Sahebrao Nirmal and Ors. decided on 16.06.2023 as well as judgment of Hon'ble Co- ordinate Bench i.e. Nagpur Bench in First Appeal No.672 of 2018 in the case of TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashish S/o. Gopal Yadao and Ors. decided on 17.10.2025.
9. Therefore, in the light of above submissions and controversies, the issue which falls for consideration of this Court is whether section 163A of M.V. Act is retrospective or prospective.
10. Same issue was raised before the Hon'ble Calcutta High FA-286-2013 -6- Court in the case of Urmila Haldar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and said Court, in paragraph 118 of the judgment, observed that, "therefore, the conclusion seems to be inescapable that while deciding pending claim application/appeals, post May 22, 2018, the new schedule ought to be applied by the tribunals for determining compensation to be payable to the legal heirs of the accident victim or to the victim himself regardless of whether the new schedule is beneficial to them or not."
11. Admittedly, present claim petition was instituted by claimants initially under section 166 of M.V. Act, but they consciously got it converted under section 163A of M.V. Act. Indeed, they have quoted income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and therefore, at that point of time, cap of income being Rs.40,000/- per annum, learned Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the claim as income exceeded said cap limit and law which prevailed at that point of time has been applied.
12. However, in this appeal, which is a continuation of proceedings, section 163A of M.V. Act having been deleted since May 2018 and section 164 of M.V. Act having been brought into play by way of amendment, in the light of observation of the Calcutta High court, which are affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of FA-286-2013 -7- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder (supra), recently decided on 08.02.2024, though this Court in First Appeal No.1002 of 2004 took a view based on observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) and held that, section 163A is not retrospective, the recent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder (supra) can be applied for granting relief. Sight cannot be lost that it is a beneficial legislation and time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court has evolved legal proposition for awarding compensation in a manner that would be benefit the injured or the heirs of deceased. Resultantly, when death claim set up by appellants is in tune with the permissible compensation even under section 164 of M.V. Act, as amended in May 2018, which replaced section 163A, i.e. to tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, there is no reason to refuse the same.
On the point of liability to pay compensation, learned Tribunal while answering issue no.3 has observed and recorded a finding in paragraph 9 of the judgment that, "it is now a settled principle of law that unless there is any specific term and condition of insurance policy under which the Insurance Company has taken responsibility to indemnify damages caused to the victim or its dependents, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to victim/pillion rider or his dependents in the case of FA-286-2013 -8- his death. In the instant case, the deceased was a pillion rider and the insurance in question does not appear to include risk to the pillion rider so as to ask the Insurance Company to indemnify the damages sustained by the dependents of deceased/victim, pillion rider." There is no challenge to such findings before this Court so as to interfere in the same.
13. Consequently, liability to compensate falls solely on the rider/owner of the motorcycle i.e. respondent no.1. Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) The First Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 26.04.2010 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1 & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani in M.A.C.P. No. 31 of 200 is hereby set aside.
(iii) Respondent No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only) to claimants, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of registration of claim petition till its realization.
(iv) Award be prepared accordingly. (v) Respondent No.1 shall deposit the amount before this
Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order.
FA-286-2013 -9-
(vi) On deposit of the amount by Respondent No.1, appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.
(vii) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale