Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act applies retrospectively to award enhanced lump-sum compensation for death.

On 30.05.2006 at about 12:30 hours, three persons—Ronak Prakashchandra Prajapati, Sudhaben @ Smitaben Prakashchandra Prajapati, and Ashishkumar Prakashchandra Prajapati—sustained fatal injuries when an S.T. Bus (Reg. No. GJ-18-V-6612), driven rashly and at excessive speed from the opposite direction, dashed into their Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle (Reg. No. GJ-7-AK-8499)

The legal heirs filed claim petitions (MACP Nos. 187, 188 & 189 of 2006) under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

By judgment and award dated 23.01.2015, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad, partly allowed all three petitions, awarding Rs. 54,500/- in each with interest at 7.5% per annum from filing till realization

The Tribunal also exonerated respondent No. 3-Insurance Company from liability

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Motor Vehicles Act was amended and Section 164 was inserted

The claimants preferred these appeals solely on the ground of quantum

The owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay compensation of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death (and two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt) arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, without requiring the claimant to plead or establish negligence

A beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same, and accordingly enhanced compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of an accident predating the 22.05.2018 amendment

The Court, on scanning the text of Section 164, found that the provision "empowers the Court/Tribunal to award a lump-sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of death in a vehicular accident to the legal representatives of the deceased"

The Court held the issue to be "no more res integra," as the Supreme Court in Urmila Halder (supra) had squarely settled that the amended provision concerning the computational mode and modality of compensation operates retrospectively—being beneficial legislation, its benefit must extend to claimants absent any specific statutory bar

The Court rejected respondent No. 2's contention that the amendment could not apply retrospectively and, applying the ratio of Urmila Halder, concluded that the claimants are entitled to lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in each of the three appeals

Since the Tribunal had already awarded Rs. 54,500/- in each petition, the Court computed the enhanced liability as the differential amount of Rs. 4,45,500/- per appeal, carrying the same 7.5% interest rate granted by the Tribunal

It held that the claimants/appellants are entitled to lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in each appeal, i.e., an additional compensation of Rs. 4,45,500/- (Rs. 5,00,000/- minus Rs. 54,500/- already awarded) in each appeal, together with interest at 7.5% per annum on the additional amount from the date of filing of the claim petitions till realization

Respondent No. 2—S.T. Corporation Limited—was directed to deposit the additional compensation with interest within six weeks from receipt of the judgment, whereupon the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimants after deducting deficit court fees, if any, and after due verification