Allahabad High Court
Shri Raisul Hasan And 2 Others vs M/S S.K. Carrier Kanpur Thru. Manager ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23882
Court No. - 5
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 139 of 2025
Appellant :- Shri Raisul Hasan And 2 Others
Respondent :- M/S S.K. Carrier Kanpur Thru. Manager And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Avaneesh Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Vikram Soni,Prashant Singh
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Vikram Soni along with Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.
2. Despite service of notice upon respondents No.1 & 2, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, as such, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.
3. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants aggrieved and praying for enhancement of the award of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North, Lucknow in Claim Application No.1079 of 2014 in Re: Shri Raisual Hasan and Others vs. M/S S.K. Carrier and others.
4. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants under Section 140 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988"). The Tribunal had framed various issues but so far as the instant appeal is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants argues that only issue no.1, as framed by the learned Tribunal, would be relevant which was whether on the fateful day i.e. 19.08.2014 when the deceased Rabia Khatoon was returning along with others on a maruti van she met with an accident on account of the fault of a truck being driven carelessly and that had stopped suddenly. The learned Tribunal, in paragraph 19 of its judgment has given a finding that in case the maruti van would have maintained a safe distance from the truck then the said accident would not have occurred and, consequently, it cannot be said that there was composite negligence. Learned Tribunal has further given a finding that there was no fault or negligence on the part of the truck driver and consequently, the claimants would not be entitled for any compensation under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 rather would be entitled for compensation as provided under Section 140 of the Act, 1988.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has only confined himself to the quantum of the compensation.
6. The argument is that the date of accident is 19.08.2014. The claim petition has been decided on 17.08.2023. By that date, Chapter X which contained Sections 140 to 144 of the Act, 1988 had been omitted by Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and in turn, Chapter XI of the Act, 1988 had been substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2022 of which the conditions as stipulated in Section 140 of the Act, 1988 were now part of Section 164 of the Act, 1988 (amended). Section 164 of the Act, 1988 provides a compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs in the case of death.
7. The further argument is that as the claim application has been decided on 17.08.2023 by which date Section 164 (amended) of the Act, 1988 had come into force and Section 140 of the Act, 1988 had been omitted, as such, the learned Tribunal has patently erred in law in only awarding Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.5 Lakhs to the claimants / appellants as provided under Section 164 of the Act, 1988.
8. On the other hand, Shri Vikram Soni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has argued that a perusal of the claim application filed by the claimants would indicate that the same was filed under Sections 165, 166 read with Section 140 of the Act, 1988. Once the learned Tribunal found that there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver with which the vehicle, in which the deceased was traveling, met with an accident, consequently, the compensation as was provided under Section 140 of the Act, 1988 has been awarded in favour of the claimants which was Rs.50,000/- and as such, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in awarding the said amount.
9. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
10. From a perusal of the record, it emerges that the date of accident is 19.08.2014 in which Smt. Rabia Khatoon, the wife of the appellant No.1 and the mother of the appellant Nos. 2 & 3, met with an accident and died.
11. The claim application was filed under Sections 165, 166 read with Section 140 of the Act, 1988. The claim application has been decided by the learned Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 17.08.2023.
12. By the time the claim application was decided, Section 140 of the Act, 1988 had been omitted from the statute book and Sections 164, 165 and 166 etc. had been substituted. Section 164 is pari materia with the erstwhile Section 140 of the Act, 1988 to the extent of no fault liability and which now provides a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be awarded to the claimants in case of death.
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.
17. Before parting with the case, the Court may notice that there is some anomaly which has been pointed out in the date of filing of claim application which in the judgment has been indicated as 13.01.2015 while in the award the same has been indicated as 08.09.2014.
18. It is admitted by the parties that the claim application has been filed on 08.09.2014.
19. The said date is recorded.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025
S. Shivhare
