The amendment to the second Schedule of Section 163A of the Act does not have retrospective effect, thus limiting compensation to prior amounts.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the second respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.505/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (the Tribunal), aggrieved by Award dated 10/10/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners and first respondent in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claim petitioners are the wife, children and father of deceased Unnikrishnan. According to the claim petitioners, on 25/01/2015 at about 09:00 a.m., while the deceased was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-04- AD-2650 ridden by the first respondent and when they reached near Angadi Marthoma Hospital Junction, due to the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent, he fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries, to which he succumbed.

3. The first respondent-rider of the motorcycle remained ex-parte.

4. The second respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying the factum of the accident. The averments in the petition regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed. The amount claimed was contended to be exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent-rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹5,00,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate cost of ₹20,000/-. Aggrieved by the Award, the second respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that the Tribunal committed a mistake by enhancing the compensation to ₹5 lakhs as per the amended second Schedule to Section 163A of the Act, which does not have retrospective effect. The claim petitioners are only entitled to compensation as per the Schedule that existed on the date of the accident. As the Tribunal has gone beyond the same, the error committed needs to be rectified. In support of the argument, reference was made to the dictum of a Full Bench of this Court in Neeli v. Padmanabha Pillai , 1992 KHC 452 and the dictum of the Apex Court inRamkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company , 2020 KHC 6008 : 2020 (2) SCC 550

9.1. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore the amendment has retrospective effect. In support of the argument, he relies on the dictums of the Apex Court inRam Murti v. Punjab State Electricity Board , MANU/SC/1706/2022 : 2023 ACJ 631 ; New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983 and Valsamma Chacko v. M.A.Titto , MANU/SCOR/19670/2025

10. In Neeli (Supra), the question that arose for consideration was whether Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has retrospective application, that is, whether it would be applicable to cases of accidents prior to 01/10/1982, the date on which the Section came into force. The reference was answered in the negative and it was held that Section 92A cannot apply to cases of