Usha Rani and Ors. Vs Amrik Singh and Ors.

Th e present appeal has been p r eferred against the award d a ted 15.12.2005 pas s ed in the claim petition bearing MACT No. 68 of 2004 filed u n der Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19 8 8 by the learned Motor Acci d ent Claims Tribun a l Yamuna Nagar at Jagadh r i (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement o f compensation granted to the c laimants/appellants on accoun t of death of Pyar e Lal who died in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 14.07.2004, w h ereby, the claimants/appellants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,80,200/- alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum. 2. As sole issue for determination i n the present appeal is confine d to quantum of co m pensation awarded by the lear n ed Tribunal, a detailed narratio n of the facts of the c ase are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

¶14

MAHIMA 2025.03.10 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

FAO-1646-2006 (O&M) - 2-

¶16

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

¶17

Le a rned counsel for the claimants - appellants has made the follo w ing

¶18

submissions:-

¶19

i) That the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶20

ii) That Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is n ow substituted by Section 164 o f Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Ac t 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.202 2 ) and compensation should be enhanced as per the substit u ted statutory provision i.e. Sec t ion 164 of the Act.

¶21

iii) That the present c a se is covered by the judg m ent rendered by this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006 , title d as “ Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others .” wherein the claim under Se c tion 163-A of the Motor Vehi c les Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 of Motor Vehicles A ct, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e. f 01.04.2022) by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supre m e Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] wherein it was held tha t Section 164 of the Motor Vehi c les Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 20 1 9 w.e.f 01.04.2022) provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amoun t of Rs.5 lakh and in the case of g rievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakh.

¶22

Pe r contra, learned counsel for t h e respondent-Insurance Comp a ny, however, vehe m ently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the am o unt

¶23

MAHIMA 2025.03.10 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶24

FAO-1646-2006 (O&M) - 3-

¶25

of compensatio n as assessed by the learned Tr i bunal has rightly been granted. He prays for dismi s sal of appeal.

¶26

I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the w h ole record of this c a se.

¶27

A perusal of the award indica t es that in the present case, the claimants/appel l ants filed the claim petition s e eking compensation on accoun t of death of Pyare L al who was aged about 27/28 y ears at the time of accident. Since Section 163-A o f Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now substituted by Section 16 4 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w .e.f 01.04.2022), compensatio n is liable to be enhanced as per the substituted sta t utory provision i.e. Section 16 4 of the Act, theref o re, the appellants herein are e n titled to be granted the benefi t of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Sec t ion 164 provides f o r payment of compensation in c ase of death in the amount of R s.5 lakhs and in case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lak h s. 7. Fu r ther, this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006 , titled as “ Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others ” h e ld as under:-

¶28

“ 1 1 . Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] h eld th a t the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of benefi c ial pr o vision enacted by the Parlia m ent under Chapter 11 of w h ich Se c tion 164 provides for payme n t of compensation in the cas e of de a th in the amount of Rs.5 lakh s and in the case grievous hur t of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

¶29

MAHIMA 2025.03.10 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶30

FAO-1646-2006 (O&M) - 4-

¶31

12. This Court in FAO-195-2006 titled as Mamta and Others Vs. Happy and Others , de c ided on 29.05.2024, held that s i nce M o tor Vehicle statute is a benefici a l legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of t h e provisions, under which the ap p lication or petition is moved b u t should apply his judicial min d, as th e se are only the irregularities a n d not illegalities which canno t be cu r ed. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the los s caused to the claimants or th e relationship or to the victim o f the li m b cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make every e ff ort by exercising its discretion empa t hetically. Further, Justice sh o uld ac t ually be shown to be delivered b y application of judicial mind w ith int e lligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empa t hy. Th e Court decision should be suc h that they strengthen the trust a nd co n fidence of public and litigants i n judicial system and judiciary . ”

¶32

In v iew of the above, the present a ppeal is allowed. Accordingly, the award dated 15.12.2005 is modified by convert i ng the claim petition under Sec t ion 163-A (pre 201 8 amendment) to Section 164 ( p ost 2018 amendment) of the M o tor Vehicles Act, 1988. As such, the claima n ts/appellants are held entitle d to compensation t o the tune of Rs.5 lakhs , which shall be disbursed as per r a tio settled by the le a rned Tribunal in its award date d 15.12.2005. 9. So far as the interest part is conc e rned, as held by Hon’ble Supr e me Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-cl a imants are granted the interes t @

¶33

MAHIMA 2025.03.10 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶34

FAO-1646-2006 (O&M) - 5-

¶35

9% per annum o n the enhanced amount of co mp ensation from the date of filin g of claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶36

Th e Insurance Company is directe d to deposit the enhanced amou n t of compensation a l ong with interest with the Trib u nal within a period of two mo n ths from the receip t of copy of this judgment. The a ppellants-claimants are directe d to furnish their b ank account details to the I n surance Company/Tribunal. T he Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced a m ount of compensation along w ith interest in the accounts of the claimants/app e llants, as per ratio settled by the learned Tribun a l in its award dated 15.12.2 0 05. The claimants/appellants are directed to furn i sh their bank account details to t he Tribunal.

¶37

Fu r ther Insurance Company is directed to disburse the cur r ent schedule fees t o Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, w ithin a period of twenty days f r om the date of rece i pt of certified copy of this orde r , in view of order dated 18.07.2 0 24 passed by this C ourt in FAO-1682-2007.

¶38

Pe n ding applications, if any, also s t and disposed of.

¶39

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE

¶40

04.03.2025

¶41

mahima

¶42

Whether speaking/non-spea k ing : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes

¶43

MAHIMA 2025.03.10 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Usha Rani and Ors. v. Amrik Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Rani and Ors. v. Amrik Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Bala and Anr. Vs Hardeep Singh and Anr.

Rajesh Goyal Vs Darshan Singh and Ors.

Joyson Vs Om Parkash and Others

Kuldip Singh etc. Vs Punjabi University,Patiala etc.

(O&M) Sushila and Ors. Vs Sanjay and Ors.

Sharmila Devi and Ors. Vs Ravinder and Ors.