Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sohadra Bai Manikpuri vs Vivek Sethiya on 4 May, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:20732
ASHOK NAFR
SAHU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by ASHOK
SAHU
Date:
2026.05.05
15:58:24 +0530
MAC No. 1346 of 2019
1 - Smt. Sohadra Bai Manikpuri, W/o. Late Bhupendra Das, Aged About
28 Years, R/o. Infront Of Gaya Bai School, Gayanagar, Durg, Tahsil And
District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ku. Priya, D/o. Late Bhupendra Das, Aged About 6 Years, Minor
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sohadra Bai, W/o. Late
Bhupendra Das Manikpuri, R/o. Infront Of Gaya Bai School, Gayanagar,
Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Praveen Das Manikpuri, S/o. Late Bhupendra Das, Aged About 4
Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sohadra Bai, W/o.
Late Bhupendra Das Manikpuri, R/o. Infront Of Gaya Bai School,
Gayanagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Amru Das Manikpuri, S/o. Narayan Das Manikpuri, Aged About 75
Years, R/o. Infront Of Gaya Bai School, Gayanagar, Durg, Tahsil And
District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
2
1 - Vivek Sethiya, S/o. Chanchal Sethiya, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. MIG
C-524, Padmanabhpur, Police Station Durg, Tahsil And District Durg,
Chhattisgarh........Owner Of Offending Motorcycle No.CG- 07, LC- 3319.
2 - Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited,
Office At Chouhan Estate, First Floor, G E Road Supela , Bhilai, Tahsil
And District Durg Chhattisgarh...............Insurer Of Offending Motorcycle
No. C G-07, L C- 3319., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 04.05.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred questioning the award dated 04.10.2017 passed by learned Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.36/2015, by which the claim application filed under Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act has been rejected, finding no merit.
2. The facts, in brief, are that, on the date of accident, Bhupendra Das was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.07-LC- 3 3319 owned by the respondent No.1 and insured by the respondent No.2 and while driving the motorcycle, the motorcycle slipped, on account of which, Bhupendra Das along-with pillion rider Chhagan Verma fell down and Bhupendra Das died, leading to filing of an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that though the accident has proved but it was not proved that the vehicle was being driven in violation of breach of terms of the insurance policy and proceeded to reject the application holding that the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable.
4. Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application mainly on the ground that the income of the deceased has been pleaded to be Rs. 72,000/- per annum, it ought to have been restricted to Rs. 40,000/- per annum and even otherwise, the Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act suffered amendment w.e.f. 22nd May, 2018, therefore, the claimants would be entitled for lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs plus 5% increase annually, as it has retrospective effect in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder1. 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983 4
5. Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle/ respondent No.1 and Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company/ respondent No.2 would oppose the above submission and submit that the claim application has rightly been dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely.
7. Though the claim application has been preferred claiming the income of the deceased to be Rs. 72,000/- per annum, but the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income before the rejecting the application. Even otherwise, Second Schedule of Section 163-A suffered amendment w.e.f. 22.05.2018 and the compensation awarded in case of death has been fixed to Rs. 5 Lakhs. However, the Claims Tribunal has failed to notice the scheduled annexed to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been amended on 22nd May, 2018, wherein it has been provided that in case of death, the compensation payable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act would be Rs. 5,00,000/-.
8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:-
5
"163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule."
9. Notification dated 22nd May of 2018 provides as under:-
SCHEDULE FOR COMPENSATION FOR THIRD PARTY FATAL ACCIDENT/INJURY CASES CLAIMS
1. (a) Fatal Accidents:-
Compensation payable in case of Death shall be five lakh rupees.
(b) Accidents resulting in permanent disability :
Compensation payable shall be = [Rs. 5,00,000/- x percentage disability as per Schedule I of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923)] :6
Provided that the minimum compensation in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees.
(c) Accidents resulting in minor injury :
A fixed compensation of twenty five thousand rupees shall be payable :
2. On and from the date of 1 st day of January, 2019 the amount of compensation specified in the clauses (a) to (c) of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent annually.
3. This notification shall come into form on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
10. Now, the question for consideration would be whether Notification dated 22nd May, 2018 would have retrospective effect as the accident in the instant case has taken place on 07.01.2015, whereas, the Notification with regard to amendment in the Schedule annexed with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act fixing the compensation in the death case has come into effect on 22 nd May, 2018 by which in the death case the compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act would be payable to ₹5,00,000/-.
11. In the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have framed the aforesaid question for determination in paragraph No.4 and answered in paragraph No.10. Paragraphs No.4 & 10 state 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 7 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.
12. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along-with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 30.04.2015 i.e. date of filing of claim application before the Claims Tribunal. The respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded by this Court within a period of 45 days.
13. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok