Oral Judgment:

1. Heard.

2. By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha, in Claim Petition No.25/2004 dated 03.03.2008.

3. In short, the case before the Tribunal was, the present respondents, who are the original claimants, filed the Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by stating that deceased Nitin, while traveling on 29.03.2003, on his scooter bearing No. MH 12/TC–122, brushing dash by an unknown vehicle was given to the Scooter, because of which, Nitin lost control over his scooter and the scooter dashed against the truck bearing No. MH 31-M/6254 and sustained fatal injuries and died in the hospital.

4. The Police Station Khamgaon, on the basis of First Information Report has lodged the offence vide Crime No.37/2003, dated 29.03.2003. On the basis of this police complaint, the spot panchanama (Exhibit-37), inquest panchanama (Exhibit-38) and post mortem report (Exhibit- 39) were prepared in the matter. This registration of crime itself demonstrates that there was an accident and in that accident, the deceased Nitin caused death.

5. It is a well-settled position of law that a Claim Petition filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for deciding the petition, the only requirement was that the accident should occurred out of the use of a motor vehicle. There is no need to prove the negligence on the part of any person involved in the accident. In the background of this factual and legal position, the learned Tribunal by impugned judgment has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- to the respondents/claimants.

6. The appellant Insurance Company challenged the judgment and order before this Court by way of present appeal on the ground that the claimants in their application has stated that the deceased was having income of Rs.6000/- per month, which according to the appellant exceeds the limit prescribed of maximum of Rs.40,000/- per annum and thereby, the claim petition itself was not tenable and consequently the awarding the compensation is illegal. Secondly, it is the submission of the appellant that the vehicle was driven by the deceased and there was negligence on a part while driving the vehicle. Hence, the deceased being the driver and owner of the vehicle is not entitled for the compensation in the matter.

7. In response to the notices issued by this Court, the respondents claimants appeared in the matter and contested the present appeal. According to them, the learned Tribunal has awarded the less compensation though it was proved beyond doubt that the deceased caused death in the motor vehicle accident and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation Rs.5,00,000/- in the matter. In view of submission of both the parties, the following issues need consideration in the matter:

                   i) Whether the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is tenable in light of amended provisions to the Motor Vehicles Act particularly due to substitution of Section 164 in place of 163A?

                   ii) Whether the respondents/claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

                   iii) Whether the provisions of Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be made retrospectively in the matter?

8. In the present appeal, before adverting to the merits of the matter, it will be necessary to consider Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:

                   “Section 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 liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be the use of motor 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.

                   (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.”

                   and amended Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:

                   “Section 164 - Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc. – (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 grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

                   (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt 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 of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.

                   (3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section.”

9. From the perusal of both provisions, it is crystal clear that under Section 163-A as well as Section 164, claimants are not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which claim has been made was due to wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other persons. The only difference which is apparent in both provisions is about the entitlement of compensation. According to old Section 163-A, the amount of compensation was required to be done as per the structure formula given under the second Schedule of the Act. Whereas under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act that part has been deleted and it is stated that in case of death, the claimant will be entitled the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and in case of grievous hurt, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. Hence, in my opinion, while considering Section 164, the Court is not required to be dealt with the structural formula while awarding compensation in the matter.

10. The other issue which arose in the matter whether Section 163-A can be made applicable retrospectively in the matter. In this regard, the respondents claimants have relied upon the judgment of the Kolkata Bench in the case of Urmila Haldar Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Reported in 2018 SCC OnLIne Kalkatta 11751. In the said judgment, considering the relevant provisions as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Court has reached to the conclusion that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act being a piece of beneficial legislation, the provisions of Section 164 are applicable retrospectively. The said judgment of the Kolkata Bench, was under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. (Civil) No.6260/2019. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by holding that the Kolkata Bench has discussed elaborately as to how the provisions of Section 164 are applicable retrospectively and, therefore, being in agreement of the same, dismissed the S.L.P. filed by the Insurance Company therein. Hence, it is now clear that the provisions Section 164 are applicable retrospectively.

11. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in First Appeal No.289/2004 has also taken the same view on the basis of the judgment of the Madras High Court and held that the benefit of amended act can be granted to the pending application by holding that the provisions in respect of compensation on account of vehicular accident is a beneficial legislation. Therefore, there is no reason to take another view in the matter and hence, it has to be held that Section 164 has a retrospective application in the matter.

12. In respect of the submission of the appellant Insurance Company that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased. In this regard, it is stated that the provisions of Sections 163-A and 164 abundantly made clear that while deciding the claim petition, the claimants are not required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which claim has been made, was due to a wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of any other person. Hence, in my view, the submission of the appellant Insurance Company cannot be accepted in the matter.

13. It is further pertinent to note that before the Reference Court, on the basis of police case papers, it was established on record that the accident was occurred due to a dash given by unknown vehicle to the scooter of the deceased. The said police papers were not disputed by the appellant in the matter. So also, no contrary evidence was brought on record by the appellant in the matter. Hence, in my view, if no contrary evidence was brought on record, there was no reason to disbelieve the police case papers in the matter. In this regard, I am supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rattani and others reported in 2009 2 SCC 75.

14. The other contention of the appellant is that as per the own submission of the claimants that the monthly income of deceased was Rs.6000/- per month and, therefore, the claim petition was exceeding the limit of Rs.40,000/- and hence, same was not tenable. In this regard, it is stated that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is now substituted as Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The bare perusal of Section 164 shows no cap of income has been introduced. Therefore, legal position which appears from the reading of Section 164 of the Act is that, any person can file a claim under Section 164 of the Act, 1988, irrespective of this income. Hence, considering this legal provision, I do not find any merit in the submission of the appellant.

15. Moreover, the learned Tribunal while determining the compensation of the deceased has considered his income Rs.3000/- per month and thereby hold that same comes under the limit of Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. In view of this fact also, the submission of the appellant cannot be accepted in the matter. Hence, in my view, the grounds which appellant has raised, have no substance in the matter.

16. The appellant then strongly opposed for enhancement of the claim on the ground that there is no appeal or cross- objection filed by the claimants in the matter and therefore, in the appeal of Insurance Company enhancement cannot be granted in the matter.

17. In respect of the submission of the appellant that no enhancement can be entertained at the instance of the claimants, the claimants have relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sureka w/o Rajendra Nakhate and ors. Vs. Santosh s/o Namdeo Jadhav and ors. in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 decided on 21.01.2020 and the judgment of Coordinate Bench in case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Rukmini Deepak alias Dilip Kachare and others dated 02.07.2025 in First Appeal No.105/2007. The perusal of the observations made in the judgments clearly established the fact that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation even though they failed to file cross-appeal in the matter. Considering this legal position, I am of the opinion that appellants are entitled for claiming enhancement in the matter.

18. Now, the issue how much is the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is required to be decided in the present appeal. In my opinion, earlier Section 163-A has provided structural formula under which the Court has to determine the entitlement of the legal heirs for the compensation in a death or in a permanent disability case. However, amended Section 164 of the Act, nowhere states that the compensation is to be awarded on the basis of any schedule given under the Act. Therefore, in my opinion, in a death claim, the claimants are entitlement for the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- without considering any other issues in the matter.

19. It is also to bear in mind, the present appeal being the continuation of the original proceedings. While deciding the claim for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court can look into the amended provisions, which is now prevailing at the time of deciding the present appeal. As, I already held that Section 164 is applicable retrospectively in the matter, in my considered opinion, the respondents/claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in the matter.

20. The appellant Insurance Company has submitted that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, this Court should consider the period from which the rate of interest be made applicable to the enhance compensation in the matter. According to them, as per Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court has discretion to exercise the option of interest in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

21. As per the settled position of law, the rate of interest must be just and reasonable, depending upon the facts and circumstance of each case and taking all relevant factors, including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, the suffering of the legal heirs of the deceased etc. So also, interest is compensation for detention of money and same is to be awarded to a party, only for being kept Court of the money which ought to have been paid to him. As such, no principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in a Motor Accident claim case having regard to the nature of provisions under Section 171 of the Act.

22. As such, in my opinion, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, a pragmatic approach is required while awarding the rate of interest in such cases. Therefore, in my opinion, as the respondents did not file any cross-objection or appeal against the judgment of the Claims Tribunal and the present Assurance Company has filed the appeal, in my opinion from the date of filing of the appeal by the appellant Insurance Company i.e. from 25.01.2010, the claimants are entitled for the interest in the matter. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

i) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT No.25/2004 is modified to the extent that respondents/claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

ii) Needless to mention that the amount which was awarded by the Tribunal would be deducted from the enhanced compensation.

iii) The apportionment as directed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on appellant and respondent No.4 Insurance Company is confirmed.

iv) Both the respondent Nos.1 and 7 are directed to deposit the amount apportioned as per the Claims Tribunal along with interest within two months.

v) It is made it clear that the appellant will be entitled for the interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of registration of this appeal i.e. on 25.01.2010 at the rate of 7.5% till its full realization.

vi) The respondents/claimants will be entitled to withdraw the said amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial).

23. The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.