Facts
The appellants (original claimants) filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following a fatal accident on June 22, 2003, involving the deceased, Hareshbhai Jashmatbhai Vora
Source reference: p. 6The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot, vide judgment dated August 12, 2013, awarded a compensation of ₹1,54,500 with 8% interest per annum
Source reference: p. 2The claimants appealed to the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation, primarily relying on subsequent legislative amendments and judicial precedents
Source reference: p. 3Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in its quantum of compensation and if the 2018 amendment to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act applies retrospectively to pending appeals
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
The Court applied Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for compensation on a structured formula basis without requiring proof of negligence
Source reference: p. 3It specifically referenced the Notification dated May 22, 2018, which amended the Second Schedule to increase the fixed compensation for fatal accidents to ₹5,00,000
Source reference: p. 3Furthermore, the Court relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *K.R. Jagdish and another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another (2025 ACJ 1881)*, which established that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation and the 2018 amendment should be applied retrospectively to pending proceedings
Source reference: p. 4, 7Reasoning
The Court noted that the involvement of the vehicle and the liability of the Insurance Company were uncontroverted as no cross-appeals were filed by the respondents
Source reference: p. 6The central legal determination hinged on whether the fixed compensation amount should be governed by the law existing at the time of the accident (2003) or the amended law (2018)
Source reference: no citationFollowing the Supreme Court's reasoning in *K.R. Jagdish*, the Court observed that since the appeal was pending when the 2018 amendment came into force, the claimants were entitled to the enhanced statutory benefit
Source reference: p. 7The Court held that beneficial legislation intended to provide social security must be interpreted liberally in favor of the claimants, thereby justifying the shift from the structured formula of the old schedule to the flat ₹5 Lakhs prescribed by the new amendment
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The High Court allowed the appeal and modified the Tribunal’s award
It held that the appellants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹5,00,000 (instead of ₹1,54,500) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization
Source reference: p. 7-8Respondent No. 2 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks, and the Tribunal was instructed to disburse the funds to the claimants after deducting any unpaid Court Fees
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
Jashmatbhai Hardasbhai Vora & Anr. v. M J Trambadiya & Ors. [R/First Appeal No. 1870 of 2015]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in