Compensation claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are contingent upon the claimant's income being below the statutory threshold, while recent amendments enhancing compensation are prospective.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. Both the Learned Advocates representing the appellants/claimants Company and the respondents/Insurance Company are present in Court.

2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 27.01.2006 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Purba Medinipore at Tamluk in M.A.C. Case No. 61 of 2025/55 of 2025.

3. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant submitted that the instant appeal had been filed against the Judgment and award dated 27.01.2006 passed by the Judge Motor Accident Tribunal, Purba Medinipore at Tamluk in MAC Case No. 61/2005 by 55/2005 deciding an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was further submitted disregarding the claimed income of the victim to be Rs.4,500/- per month the Tribunal has assessed the compensation to the extent of Rs.2,09,000/- against the claimed amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant referred to the decision cited in Ram Murti & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (Civil Appeal No. 7143 of 2022):

“The High Court has affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal in regard to the dismissal of the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, having due regard to the amendment of the provisions of Section 140 in 1994, the amount payable has been enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

We are inclined to give the appellants the benefit of the beneficial provisions which have been enacted by Parliament. Hence, in modification of the order of the High Court, we direct that the appellants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. However, if the amount of Rs.50,000/- which has been awarded by the High Court has already been paid over, the balance (or the entirety of Rs.5,00,000/-if no amount has been paid) shall be paid over to the appellants by 30th November, 2022.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.”

4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant referred to the decision cited in Bholanath Karmakar & Ors. Vs. Madanmohan Karmakar & Ors. AIR 1988 Cal 1:

“I had also occasion to consider this question in Gopal Chandra Kalay Vs. State, 1981 Lab IC 422 at page 423, 425 (Sikkim) and the Union of India Vs. Ashok, AIR 1983 Sikkim 19 at page 23, 25, 26 where, for the reasons stated therein, I accepted this view and agreed respectfully with the views of Sandhawalia, C.J. in the Punjab Full Bench decision in Indo- Swiss Time, (supra) and the minority view of Jagannatha Shetty, J. in the Karnataka Full Bench decision in Govinda Naik, (supra). I held that where there are contrary decisions of the Supreme Court rendered by Benches of equal strength, the High Court, in theory, being bound by each one, is, in effect, bound by none and is not necessarily obliged to follow the later in point of time, but may follow the once which, according to it, is better in point of law.”

5. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant referred to the decision cited in Ramkhiladi Vs. The United India Insurance Company , AIR 2020 SC 527 :

“It is further submitted by the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that in the present case the contract of insurance specifically provides that in case of personal accident the owner cum driver is only entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is submitted that therefore the deceased who had stepped into the shoes of the o