1. The present appeal is directed against the Order No. 35 dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Fast Track Court, Jalpaiguri in M.A.C. Case No. 43 of 2018 under section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. By the said order, the Learned Tribunal Judge allowed the MAC Case on contest against the OP/Owner i.e Manager, M/S Shikarpur Tea Garden ex parte without costs and awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,17,500/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of application i.e. 11.01.2018 till full realization within 60 days hereof failing which claimants will at liberty to put the order in execution against the OP/Owner and the claimants will get penal interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants submitted that the instant appeal has been filed on mainly two-fold grounds: -

               Firstly, The Tribunal did not consider and allow the fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in an application under Section 163A due to new amendment and Notification dated 22.05.2018.

               Secondly, the interest granted @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim application should be at least 7%.

4. Learned counsel has placed reliance of the unreported judgment passed by this Court in the case of Gita Adhikary & Anr -versus- National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. in FMA 59 of 2024.

5. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Owner of the offending vehicle despite service of notice, as such, the matter was taken up for hearing ex parte.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the appellants/claimants and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- on account of death of victim Nikodin Toppo in an application filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the effect that on 24.12.2016, at about 23.00 hrs the victim was going from Mogradangi Church to Shikarpur Tea Garden within the District: Jalpaiguri to attained the Christmas day celebration along with friends and family members at that time, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. WB-73B-6492 accident took place, and due to such an accident, the victim suffered serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to his injuries

7. The legal heirs and representatives of the victim filed the compensation case under Section 163A of the MV Act and adduced evidence of P.W. 1 and exhibited number of documents including Insurance Certificate of the offending vehicle but the same was not valid at the time of accident.

8. It is proved by the claimants that the accident occurred and victim died due to serious injuries caused by the aforesaid accident. In an application filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act i.e., “no fault liablity”, there is no need to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle being No. WB-73B-6492 involved in the accident.

9. It appears from the judgment that the Learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation after relying on a judgment passed in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others v. Md. Tabbar and Anr.( 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (SC)) and considered the notional income @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Learned Tribunal also awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,500/- as general damages (Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- as loss of estate) and finally after calculation, total compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,17,500/- has been awarded in favour of the appellant.

10. Only consideration for this court here is to what would be the actual compensation to be paid to the appellants/claimants. This Court finds that the Learned Tribunal Judge failed to consider the Notification dated 22.05.2018 as well as amendment of the Motor vehicles Act and passed the impugned award on 22.05.2024 by taking into consideration the notional monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of accident and without looking into the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Urmila Halder vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (FMA 446 of 2010)(2018 SCC Online Cal 11751, 2019 (2) TAC 143 (Cal)). It is settled provision of law that when an application filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act for compensation towards death of the victim and when there are no disputes about the motor accident and death of the victim due to such accident, a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- ought to be granted in view of the Notification dated 22.05.2018. The accident was occurred on 24.12.2016 and the Judgment and Award passed on 01.06.2023 and the Notification was issued and come into force on and from 22.05.2018. But, the said Notification was given effect retrospectively by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta and held that the Notification will be effected retrospectively and not prospectively. The Hon’ble High Court in the case of Urmila Halder vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (FMA 446 of 2010)( 2018 SCC Online Cal 11751, 2019 (2) TAC 143 (Cal)) has held that total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in a fatal accident falls under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be paid. It has retrospective effect though the Notification has come into effect on and from 22nd May, 2018, as such, application pending prior to the amendment shall have retrospective effect.

11. Subsequently, the National Insurance Company travelled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Halder(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6260 OF 2019.), has affirmed the view taken by the Court and further held as under: -

               “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 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).”

12. This instant appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Urmila Halder in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6260 of 2019. Hence, the claimants are entitled to get a fixed compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of death caused by Motor Vehicle Accident instead of Rs. 4,17,500/-.

13. So far as the interest is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer the Judgment passed by this Hon’ble High Court passed in the case of Rekha Dutta & Ors. vs. Ram Avatar Lohia & Anr.(2009 (3) TAC (Cal) 783), wherein this Hon’ble High Court held that:-

               “In our opinion, the very approach of the Tribunal was based on the wrong notion that interest is payable as a penal measure. In this connection, it will not be out of place to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court about the object of grant of interest in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India and Ors reported in AIR 2007 SC 1198:

               “It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example, if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.”

               (Emphasis supplied)

14. The judgment relied by the appellants/claimant is squarely applicable in the present case because in the said case court awarded a fixed Compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/=. Consequently, the claimants are also entitled to get Rs. 5,00,000/- as fixed compensation together with interest on the awarded compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. on 11.01.2018 till realization.

15. It is informed that the appellants/claimants have not received the compensation amount in terms of the order of the learned Tribunal.

16. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs. 5,00,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. from 11.01.2018 till final realisation.

17. It is further directed to the respondent/owner of the vehicle that while paying the compensation amount, shall also to take into consideration of Clause 2 of the Notification dated 22.05.2018 wherein it is mentioned that on and from 01.01.2019 the amount of compensation shall stand increased by 5% annually and same needs to pay along with aforesaid compensation amount.

18. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay the enhanced amount by way of cheque. The same shall be deposited before the Office of Learned Registrar, Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri within a period of two months from this date, in default, interest will be charged @ 9% per annum simple interest on the amount not paid to the claimant till final realization.

19. Learned Registrar, Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri, upon deposit of the enhanced compensation amount together with interest on the awarded compensation amount, pay the same in the mode and manner stipulated in the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. The compensation shall be released in favour of the appellants/claimants upon proper identification and subject to verification of the payment of ad valorem Court fees on the total compensation amount, if not already paid.

20. With the above observations, the instant appeal being FMA 4 of 2025 is, thus, allowed after modifying the impugned judgment and award dated 01.06.2023 to the extent as aforesaid without order as to costs.

21. Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.

22. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Trial Court Records, if any, be sent back to the learned Court below forthwith for information.

23. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment uploaded on the official website of High Court at Calcutta.

24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all legal and necessary formalities.