JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant – Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 3rd January, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal” for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 541 of 2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.6,22,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization to present respondent Nos.1 to 4 – original claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. It is to be noted here that, though the appellant – Insurance Company has fled this appeal but they have accepted the liability of compensation of Rs.4,07,000/-, calculated as per the Second Schedule under the aforesaid Section of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Learned Counsel for appellant – Insurance Company submits that, the Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment mainly on the following two grounds :-

(i) grant of excessive interest @ 9% p.a.

(ii) despite there being outer limit of Rs.40,000/- in respect of annual income of the deceased under the Second Schedule of Section 163 – A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Tribunal held income of the deceased more than that i.e. Rs.5,088,/- p.m.

4. Learned Counsel for appellant – Insurance Company thus pointed out that, the learned Tribunal should have considered the income of deceased only upto Rs.40,000/- p.a., while calculating the amount of compensation and rate of interest @ 6% p.a. should have been applied instead of the rate of interest 9% p.a. He also relied upon following judgment :

(a) Allahabad High Court in the case of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asif and Ors., in First Appeal From Order No. 2434 of 2018

5. On the contrary, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 – original claimants strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of appellant – Insurance Company and supported the impugned judgment and award. According to him, the learned Tribunal has properly calculated the amount of compensation, which is inconsonance with the recent amendment in Schedule – II under Section 163 – A of the Motor Vehicles Act. To support his contentions he relied on following judgments :

(a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttamma and Ors. Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Anr., reported in (2013) 15 SCC 45

(b) High Court of Gauhati in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bijaya Bhuyan and Ors., reported in LAWS(GA) 2018-10-76

(c) High Court of Bombay (at Aurangabad) in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Ashabai Kalyan Kothi reported in LAWS (BOM) 2008-6-235

(d) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and Anr. Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Anr., in Civil Appeal No. 6902 of 2021 (arising out of Special Leave Petition © No. 5311 of 2019)

6. Heard rival submissions and also perused the record and proceeding of original Claim Petition No. 541 of 2001 alongwith judgments cited.

7. So far as the first ground of appeal is concerned, the appellant – Insurance Company is claiming that, the learned Tribunal has granted excessive rate of interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of compensation, which according to it should have been @6% p.a. However, it appears that, the impugned judgment and award is passed in the year 2003 and, therefore, considering the prevailing rate of interest in the said year, the awarded interest @9% p.a. is definitely appropriate and therefore, I do not find any substance in the aforesaid ground of challenge as regards the interest awarded.

8. However, the second ground of appeal needs some consideration as it relates to some vital questions, as to whether the recent amendment in the Schedule – II under Section 163 – A of the Motor Vehicles Act applies retrospectively and for the pending cases and whether the learned Tribunal is permitted to consider the income of deceased more than Rs.40,000/- p.a.

9. It is the main contention of the learned Counsel for appellant – Insur