Krishna Devi Vs Manoj Kumar

The claim petitions against which the present appeals have arisen had been instituted under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘Act’ ), respondent No.1 is the driver in a petition under Section 163-A of the Act and presence of the driver is not necessary as it is only the owner and the insurer who are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, notice to respondent No.1/driver is dispensed with.

¶19

These appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 18.07.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind ( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT Case No.100 of 05.10.1999 and MACT Case No.101 of

¶20

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

have been awarded a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- and claimants Krishna Devi etc. have been awarded a sum of Rs.4,94,500/- as compensation on account of death of Ram Narain and Subhash Chand, respectively, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the institution till realization as the accident in question had taken place on account of use of vehicle bearing No.HR-31-A-7492 (for short ‘offending vehicle’ ).

¶22

From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed in both the claim petitions by the learned Tribunal:-

¶23

“1. Whether deceased Ram Narain, Subhash Chander alias Subhash Bahadur died and petitioner Rajinder sustained injuries in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. HR-31A-7492 being driven by respondent No.1 Manoj Kumar, as alleged ?OPP.

¶24

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation. 50, how much and from whom? OPP.

¶25

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive Tata Sumo vehicle at the time of accident as alleged, if so to what effect ?OPR.

¶26

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so and to what effect? OPR.

¶27

5. Relief.”

¶28

Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective

¶29

case.

¶30

After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, the learned Tribunal has awarded claimants Murti Devi etc. a sum of Rs.4,30,000/-

¶31

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the institution till realization, payable by respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶33

Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

¶34

The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment/enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held that the accident in question had taken place on account of use of vehicle bearing No.HR-31-A-7492 which was insured with respondent No.3 and insurer of the abovesaid vehicle i.e. respondent No.3-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with so far as liability of respondents is concerned.

¶35

In the claim petition bearing No.FAO-368-2002 arising out of MACT case No.100 of 05.10.1999, the Tribunal held the income of the deceased, namely, Ram Narain aged 45 years to be Rs.4,000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum and as per II Schedule under Section 163-A, multiplier of 13 was applied (Rs.48,000/- X 13 = Rs.6,24,000/-) and after deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses, a sum of Rs.4,16,000/- was assessed towards ‘loss of dependency’ to which a sum of Rs.2,000/- was added towards ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.10,000/towards ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.2,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and in all, a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- has been awarded as compensation.

¶36

In the claim petition bearing No.FAO-369-2002 arising out of MACT

¶37

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

Subhash Chand aged 37 years to be Rs.4,000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum and as per II Schedule under Section 163-A, multiplier of 15 was applied (Rs.48,000/- X 15 = Rs.7,20,000/-) and after deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses, a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- was assessed towards ‘loss of dependency’ to which a sum of Rs.2,000/- was added towards ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.10,000/towards ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.2,500/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and in all, a sum of Rs.4,94,500/- has been awarded as compensation.

¶39

However, these claim petitions have been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which, there was a cap of maximum annual income of the deceased to be Rs.40,000/- for claiming compensation under this provision and as per Schedule attached to Motor Vehicles Act, 1/3^rd amount was to be deducted towards personal expenses and adequate multiplier was to be applied. Besides this, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.10,000/towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/- towards ‘loss of estate’ were payable. The Tribunal has rather awarded compensation in excess of what could have been assessed under Section 163-A of the Act.

¶40

However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 ACJ 631 Ram Murti and Others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board has held as under:-

¶41

"7. The provisions of Section 140 which formed a part of Chapter 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 were omitted by Act 32 of 2019. Simultaneously, Chapter 11 was substituted of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶42

8. We are inclined to give the appellants the benefit of the beneficial provisions which have been enacted by Parliament. Hence, in

¶43

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

appellants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. However, if the amount of Rs.50,000 which has been awarded by the High Court has already been paid over, the balance (or the entirety of Rs.5,00,000/- if no amount has been paid) shall be paid over to the appellants by 30 November 2022."

¶45

In Ram Murti’s case (supra) , the petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which had been dismissed and the accident had taken place when Section 164 of Act had not come into existence. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial provision and applied the beneficial provision of Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act retrospectively in cases of no-fault liability under Section 163-A and awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimant.

¶46

In the present case, the accident took place on 25.08.1999, resulting in the death of Ram Narain and Subhash Chand on account of use of vehicle bearing No.HR-31-A-7492. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. The amendment in Motor Vehicles Act has came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide which Section 163-A of the Act has been repealed and replaced by Section 164 of the Act. However, before this amendment came into force, the Government by way of Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019, vide Act No.32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.09.2019 had replaced Section 163-A of the Act with Section 164 and as such, Section 164 had infact come into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, under which claimants are held entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, in view law laid down in Ram Murti’s case (supra) , it is held that the claimants are also held entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each on account of death of Ram Narain and Subhash Chand.

¶47

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

allowed with costs.

¶49

The appellants/claimants in FAO-368-2002 are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- - Rs.4.30,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶50

The appellants/claimants in FAO-369-2002 are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,500/- (Rs.5,00,000/- - Rs.4,94,500/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶51

It is made clear that the compensation as already awarded by the Tribunal shall be payable as per directions issued in the award along with interest from the date of institution of petition till realization.

¶52

Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent/Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.

¶53

Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶54

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of connected case(s).

¶55

10.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE

¶56

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable. : Yes/No

¶57

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Krishna Devi v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Devi v. Manoj Kumar

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

Sukhbir Singh Vs Bhajan La etc.

(O&M) National Insurance Company Vs Sukhbir Singh and Ors.

Mahboob Hassan Vs Mohan Lal and Others

Murti Devi and Others. Vs Manoj Kumar

Gurudwara Shri Tahliana Sahib, Raikot, Ludhiana Vs Surjit Kaur

Monica and Ors. Vs Vijay Lal and Ors.