Claimants entitled to enhanced compensation under amended provisions of law applicable at adjudication.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.1010 of 2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad.

The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on 11.05.2008, while the deceased was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-09/S-7055 from Palakkad to Peruvembu, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-49/6500 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner of the bus filed a written statement, alleging negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The second respondent/driver of the bus entered appearance, however, no written statement has been filed. The third respondent/insurer of the bus filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The fourth respondent/insurer of the motorcycle filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the motorcycle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹3,45,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants, during hearing, argued that under the amended provision in Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (for short, “the Act”), the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/- since the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Relying on the judgment of the apex court inNew India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder [2024 KHC OnLine 8591], which was followed by this Court inRaju v. Binu [2025 KHC OnLine 977] , the learned counsel submitted that compensation can be granted invoking the amendment brought into the Act in 2018 though the accident took place in 2008. To substantiate the contentions, the learned counsel also relied on the judgments inVinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. [(1991) 4 SCC 333] ,Wilfred v.Maniyar [1995 ACJ 673],Dhannalal v.D.P.Vijayvargiya [(1996) 4 SCC 652],New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.C.Padma [(2003) 7 SCC 713] andRathi Menon v.Union of India [(2001) 3 SCC 714]. Relying on the judgment of the apex court inK.R.Jagadish & another v.M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another [2025 KHC OnLine 7494] , the learned counsel argued that since the Act is a beneficial legislation, the law prevailing at the time of adjudication, if more favourable, is to be applied, and accordingly, sought for an enhancement of compensation on the basis of the amended provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the new schedule has been brought to compensate the victims of motor accidents under the principle of “no-fault” liability commensurate with the “cost of living” and the purpose is to recompense the victims for the devaluation in money’s worth since 1994. Therefore, relying on the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from 01.04.2022, the lea