Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vijaylaxmi And Ors. vs Arvind Saxena And Another on 15 May, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29211 Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 969 of 2014 Appellant :- Smt. Vijaylaxmi And Ors. Respondent :- Arvind Saxena And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Balendu Shekhar,Divya Singh,Neelam Kumari,Ram Phal Counsel for Respondent :- Ganesh Kumar Gupta,Prabhakar Trivedi,Updesh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
2. Despite Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi, Advocate having filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and his name being indicated from the respondents, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 2.
3. Considering the earlier order of this Court dated 07.05.2025 which provides that as the matter pertains to the year 2014, the case may not be adjourned as such, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter.
4. This is an appeal filed by the claimant praying for enhancement of the amount as awarded by the learned tribunal in Claim Petition No. 141 of 2012 Inre; Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors Vs. Arvind Saxena and anr.
5. By the said award, the learned tribunal in an application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinaftere referred to as ?Act, 1988?), upon the death of the husband of the claimant no. 1, the father of the claimants no. 2 & 3 and son of Claimant no. 4 (before the learned tribunal) (now deceased) has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,21,515/- along with interest at the rate of six percent.
6. Enhancement of the awarded amount has been claimed on various grounds.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants states that vide amendment dated 22.05.2018, the compensation amount in case of no fault liability has been enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- and he prays that the enhanced amount be paid to the claimant. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex 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 considered the amendment as made in Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 which has come into effect by a Gazettee Notification dated 22.05.2018 and as to whether the same would relate to an accident which has occurred prior to the said date.
8. The Apex Court has been of the view that the Act, 1988 being 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. For the sake of convenience, the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Urmila Halder (supra) is reproduced below:-
"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)"
9. 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.""
10. 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.
11. The rate of interest as awarded by the learned tribunal was six percent but the same is being enhanced to 7 % taking into consideration the amendment made in the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 as amended in the year 2011 wherein the rate of interest has been enhanced to 7 %.
12. Let the learned trial Court record be returned back as per procedure.
Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Pachhere/-