Allahabad High Court
Smt. Asha Gupta And Ors. vs Secy. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti ... on 16 May, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ? Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28973 Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 341 of 2011 Appellant :- Smt. Asha Gupta And Ors. Respondent :- Secy. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sitaur Road Lko.And Anothe Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Sahu Counsel for Respondent :- N.C. Mehrotra,Waquar Hashim Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, had been heard yesterday i.e. 15.05.2025.
3. Despite the name of Sri Waquar Hashim, learned counsel, being indicated for respondent no.2, nobody appears on his behalf to argue the matter.
4. The case has been put up today only for the purpose of a case law which the learned counsel for the appellant wanted to cite in support of the arguments as advanced on the previous date i.e. 15.05.2025. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 15.05.2025 is reproduced below:-
"1. Heard.
2. The points as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is (a) in the statement of PW-3, he has stated that the accident has been caused as the driver was asleep.
3. However, the said statement also indicates that the death of Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta occurred on account of heart attack.
4. It is contended that the learned tribunal has itself disbelieved the statement of PW-3 regarding the death having occurred on account of heart attack and consequently, the learned tribunal should have believed the version of PW-3 so far as it pertains to the driver being asleep at the time of the accident and thus, the learned tribunal has patently erred in law in holding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver.
5. It is not understood that when one part of the statement has been disbelieved by the learned tribunal as to how and under which provision of law, the other part of the statement which might been in favour of the claimant can be believed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants states that there are case laws to the effect and he may be granted time for a day to produce the same.
7. The Court is of the view that as the matter pertains to the year 2011 and the claim petition pertains to the year 2009 and the appeal itself pertains to the year 2011 as such, no further time may be granted or if at all learned counsel for the appellants wants some time to prepare the matter despite the earlier order of this Court dated 07.05.2025 whereby it was indicated that no adjournment shall be granted as such, the matter is listed today but on the insistence of the learned counsel for the appellants that case laws are available to the aforesaid effect as such, put up this case tomorrow i.e 16.05.2025.
8. It is provided that in case the learned counsel for the appellants is unable to bring any case laws to the said effect directly addressing the situation then the Court may be compelled to impose cost upon the learned counsel for the appellants to which learned counsel for the appellants fairly agrees.
9. Put up this case tomorrow i.e 16.05.2025."
5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as set forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that an accident is said to have occurred in the intervening night of 24/25.11.2007 when one Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, the husband of claimant/appellant no.1 and the father of the appellants no.2 to 5, who were also the claimants before the learned tribunal, died on account of accident of Jeep in which he was sitting.
6. It is contended that Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, who was working as Mandi Inspector, had gone for his official duty and when he was returning, the vehicle, in which he was traveling, met with an accident and he died on account of the said accident.
7. A claim application was filed by the claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (unamended) (hereinafter referred to the as the 'Act, 1988'). The learned tribunal vide award impugned dated 23.02.2011 held that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident occurred on account of the carelessness and negligence of the driver and consequently has held that the claimants are entitled for being paid compensation on the principle of no fault and has thus awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants after arguing at some length states that he does not want to argue on the question/point/ground which he had argued yesterday i.e. 15.05.2025 rather argues that as the learned tribunal has itself awarded the amount to the claimants on the principle of no fault as provided under Section 140 of the Act, 1988 (unamended) and now the amount for no fault liability stands at Rs.5,00,000/- under the amended Section 164 of the Act, 1988 as such the claimants would be entitled for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- considering the amendment as has been made under the provisions of the Act, 1988 and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Halder passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6260 of 2019 decided on 08.02.2024 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Raisul Hasan and 2 others vs. M/S S.K. Carrier Kanpur-2025:AHC-LKO:23882.
9. No other ground has been urged.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.
11. From perusal of the records, it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 24/25.11.2007 when Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, who was an employee of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, died. A claim application had been filed under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act, 1988 (unamended). The tribunal vide the award impugned dated 23.02.2011 has held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and consequently has awarded compensation on the basis of principle of no fault which, as per the then prevailing rate, has been awarded as Rs.50,000/-.
12. Subsequent thereto the claim amount as per the provisions of the Act, 1988 has been enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- on the principle of no fault.
13. Whether the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount though the amendment has come subsequently has been considered by this Court in the case of Shri Raisul Hasan (supra) wherein this Court after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Urmila Halder (supra) has held as under:-
"13. Once the learned Tribunal has given a specific finding of there being no fault on the part of the truck driver and has proceeded to award compensation under Section 140 of the Act, 1988 (now omitted) which deals with no fault liability and by the time the judgment was delivered by the learned Tribunal i.e. on 17.08.2023 Section 140 of the Act, 1988 had itself been omitted and various other sections had been substituted of which Section 164 of the Act, 1988 is pari materia to Section 140 of the Act, 1988 to the aforesaid extent which in turn provides a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on death, consequently, it is the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to which the claimants were entitled to.
14. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Halder passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6260 of 2019 decided on 08.02.2024 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the law which was amended would come into force prospectively, which is a normal rule of interpretation and there being no retrospectivity indicated in the amendment itself, the same has to be construed in a harmonious manner giving effect to each and every word.
6. Reliance was placed on the last line of the notification, which indicates that the said amendment would come into force from the date of publication in the official Gazette, which is 22nd May, 2018. It was submitted that as the accident had occurred on 11th December, 2004, the benefit of such amendment could not be granted to the respondent. In support of this contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon various decisions of this Court in Padma Srinivasan Vs. Premier Insurance Company Limited, [(1982) 1 SCC 613]; Shyam Sunder and Others vs. Ram Kumar and Another, [(2001) 8 SCC 24]; Nasiruddin and Others Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, [(2003) 2 SCC 577] and Panchi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, [(2009) 2 SCC 589].
7. It was further contended that the present case is covered by the policy under which the payment is made and the same crystallized on the date the same was entered into and subsequent developments would not alter the rights and liabilities of the parties. Thus, the contention was that the appellant would not be liable to pay any further than what it was obliged to pay under the Act prior to coming of the amendment on 22nd May, 2018.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has rightly taken a view that it is merely a procedural amendment which has to be given retrospective effect and it is nothing substantive so as to affect the merits of the issue.
9. Having considered the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. With regard to the judgments of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, having gone through the same we find that they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus, the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case.
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 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.
(emphasis by Court)"
15. Likewise, this Court in the case of Guddu and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 (2) AICCC 1277 after placing reliance on an earlier judgment in the case of Poonam Gupta vs. Arun Kumar Mishra 2019 SCC OnLine All. 6786 has held as under:-
"11. This Court is reminded of its decision in Poonam Gupta v. Arun Kumar Mishra, 2019 S.C.C. Online All. 6786, whereby this Court had the occasion to consider the impact of the amended provisions accident occurred prior to that date and what would be the effect if the amendment which was introduced in the year 2018 can be made applicable in cases of appeal.
This Court after considering the decisions of the Apex Court and another decision of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has held as under:-
18. In view of the above, it would be noted that in terms of the aforesaid amendment introduced in the Second Schedule which replaces the entire structured formula which was prevalent in the earlier Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A. From the aforesaid, it would also reveal that the concept of non-pecuniary damages has been taken away and a complete lump sum amount in case of fatal accident causing death for which a lump sum of Rs. 5,00,000 has been provided. Earlier, the compensation was being calculated on the structured formula thereafter, the interest and the amount towards the non-pecuniary damages was granted by the Court and with fixing the non-pecuniary damages by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) the claimants were entitled to be same, however, as the appellant has relied upon the amendment incorporated in the year 2018 in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has urged that the same is applicable in the present circumstances, Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that as far as the applicability of the Second Schedule is concerned, the same shall apply, however, the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant to the extent that upon the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5,00,000, the appellants/claimants should also be granted non-pecuniary damages as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) does not find favour with this Court,
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 Ilnd 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.""
16. Accordingly, keeping in view the discussion made above as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Urmila Halder (supra) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Guddu (supra), the order passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- Lakhs along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till the date of its actual payment. Any amount already paid by the respondents shall be adjusted from the same and the balance, if any, shall be payable to the claimants - appellants."
14. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it clearly emerges that this Court has held that if the amount of compensation payable under the particular provisions has been enhanced then the claimants would be entitled for the enhanced amount.
15. So far as the interest is concerned, learned tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, in terms of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, as amended, the rate of interest now stands at 7%. As such, the claimants would be entitled to 7% interest on the awarded amount.
16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion as well as the judgment of Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Urmila Halder (supra) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Raisul Hasan (supra) the award passed by the learned tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till date of its payment. Any amount already paid by the respondents shall be adjusted from the same and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the claimants expeditiously.
17. Let the trial court record be returned as per procedure.
Order Date :- 16.5.2025 A. Katiyar