Amended Section 164 of MV Act applies retrospectively to award enhanced compensation of five lakh rupees.

On September 29, 2003, the deceased (Naresh) was traveling in a truck (GJ-3Y-8057) that overturned due to rash driving.

The claimant alleged the deceased was a laborer hired by the driver to unload cement bags for Rs. 60.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Vadodara, awarded Rs. 2,78,100 but exonerated the respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company), relying on an FIR which suggested the deceased was traveling as a "gratuitous passenger" for agricultural work.

The appellant challenged this exoneration and sought a quantum enhancement based on the 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company by classifying the deceased as a gratuitous passenger based on the FIR rather than oral evidence.

2. Whether the newly inserted Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, providing for a fixed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000, applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The court applied the principle from National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari & Ors. (2021 ACJ 2558), which mandates that in cases of contradiction between police papers (FIR/Charge-sheet) and oral testimony, greater weightage must be given to oral evidence.

Regarding quantum, the court relied on Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act (inserted by the 2019 Amendment), which prescribes a fixed sum of Rs. 5,00,000 for death.

The court relied on the precedent in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Halder (2024 (0) AIJEL-SC-74844), which held that Section 164 is beneficial legislation and applies retrospectively to pending proceedings.

The court found that the Tribunal placed "undue weightage" on the FIR.

Examining the record, the court noted that an eye-witness (Exh. 32) remained firm during cross-examination, stating the deceased was hired as a laborer for unloading cement.

Applying Chamundeswari, the court held that this oral evidence outweighed the FIR’s contents, thereby invalidating the "gratuitous passenger" classification and reversing the Insurance Company's exoneration.

Regarding the quantum, the court rejected the insurer's argument against retroactivity, holding that since Section 164 is a beneficial provision intended to clarify computational modalities, the fixed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 must be granted as per the Urmila Halder ruling.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part. The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 2,78,100 to a lump sum of Rs. 5,00,000. The court ordered the respondent No. 3 to deposit the additional amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition within six weeks.