1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award in OP(MV) No.1349 of 2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, a claim petition filed under S.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, "the Act"). The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant / claimant is that on 03.06.2005, while a car bearing Reg.No.KL - G / 3727 steered by the claimant was being towed by another car bearing Reg.No.KL - 3/9818, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL - 7 / AA - 3562 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car steered by the claimant, whereby he sustained grievous injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending bus respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The additional fourth respondent, the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KL - 3/9818 which was towing the car steered by the claimant, filed a written statement, alleging negligence on the part of the claimant. The additional fifth respondent, the previous owner of the car bearing Reg.No.KL - 3/9818, filed a written statement, contending that he is an unnecessary party. Respondents 3 and 6, who are the same insurer, filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the car bearing Reg.No.KL - 3/9818 and the bus bearing Reg.No.KL - 7 / AA - 362, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 & PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 series were marked on the side of the appellant / claimant; and RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,69,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant / claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the claim petition was preferred under S.163A of the Act, the appellant is entitled for an enhancement of compensation under the amended provision of S.164 of the Act since the adjudication for enhancement of compensation has been considered only after the amendment has come into effect on 22.05.2018 and hence, the appeal would be governed by the amended provision. To buttress the above argument, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the apex court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder (2024 KHC OnLine 8591) and submitted that in that case, the apex court had awarded enhancement of compensation for an accident that occurred in 2004 under the amended provisions of the Act, i.e., under S.164 of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer, on the other hand, submitted that since the accident in the present case was in 2005 and since the claim petition was filed under S.163A of the Act, the appellant cannot claim compensation as per the amended provision.

6. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. Admittedly, the original petition was filed under S.163A of the Act and the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,69,500/- to the appellant. The only prayer of the appellant is to grant compensation under the amended provision, i.e., under S.164 of the Act. The apex court, in K. R. Jagadish & another v. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another (SLP (civil) No. 8060 of 2024), considered the afore issue in an accident occurred in 2011, as to whether the enhanced compensation can be granted as per the 2018 amendment or not, and held that in the light of settled principle that in case of a beneficial legislation, the law prevailing at the time of adjudication, if