Munni Khatun & Ors vs Manvir Singh & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 19705 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Munni Khatun & Ors vs Manvir Singh & Ors on 7 November, 2024

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171



FAO-3138-2005(O&M)
         2005(O&M) and
FAO-461-2006(O&M)
        2006(O&M)                                                          1

208
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                       FAO-3138-2005(O&M)
                                                                2005(O&M)

Munni Khatun and others                                       . . . . Appellants

                                        Vs.


Manvir Singh @ Babbu and others                            . . . . Respondents
                                                         FAO-461-2006(O&M)
                                                                    2006(O&M)

Tallebun and anr                                              . . . . Appellants

                                        Vs.


Manvir Singh @ Babbu and others                               . . . . Respondents

                                                Date of Decision: 07.11.2024

                                       ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

                                       ****

Present:    Mr. Jashanpreet Singh Marwaha, Advocate and
            Mr
            Ms. Sanya Kapoor, Advocate
            for the appellant(s).

            Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate for
            Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate
            for respondent No.3.


        ****
SANJAY VASHISTH,
       VASHISTH J.(Oral)

1. This common order shall dispose of aforementioned two appeals i.e

FAO-3138-2005 2005 and FAO-461-2006,filed FAO 2006,filed by the appellants/claimants, as

both the appeals are interconnected ,and have arisen out of the same and

common award.

1 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171

FAO-3138-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-461-2006(O&M)

2. FA0-3138 3138-2005 2005 has been preferred by the appellants/clai appellants/claimants mants i.e (1)

Munni Khatun (widow of deceased), (2) Karmula (minor son of deceased),

(3) Jasula (minor son of deceased),(4) Anju (minor daughter of the deceased)

and (5)Halima (mother of the deceased),for enhancement of the amount of

compensation, ordered vide Award dated 23.02.2005,passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for brevity, 'Ld. Tribunal'),whereby,

claim petition i.e MACT Case No. 26 of 18.03.2004 under section 166 of the

Motor Vehicle Act,1988(in short, 'MV Act'),had been partly allowed by the

Tribunal on account of death of Mustafa.

3. FA0-416 416-2006 2006 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants i.e (1)

Tallebun (mother of deceased), and (2) Qamrul (father of deceased, for

enhancement of the amount of compensation, ordered vide Award dated

23.02.2005,passed by the Motor Accidenmt Claims T Tribunal,Patiala ribunal,Patiala (for

brevity, 'Ld. Tribunal'),whereby, claim petition i.e MACT Case No. 25 of

18.03.2004 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988(in short, 'MV

Act'),had been partly allowed by the Tribunal on account of death of

Laddoo.

4. Facts of o the Case: Few facts necessary for adjudication and extr extracted acted

from FAO-3138 3138-2005 are noticed and detailed hereafter:

hereafter:-

On 17.01.2004, at about 6 P.M., Sukhpal Singh, Mustafa, Ladduu, Ram

Chander Dass and Rashid were going in Toyota Qualis bearing registration

No. PB-11 11 U-0097 U 0097 driven by Manvir Singh@ Babbu (respondent no.1)

belonging to Surinder Kaur (respondent no.2).Respo no.2).Respondent no.1 -driver driver of the

vehicle was driving at a very fast speed, Sukhpal singh and Ram chander

2 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171

FAO-3138-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-461-2006(O&M)

requested respondent no.1-driver no.1 driver , to drive slowly but he misbehaved with

them. At about 6 a.m, when they reached at Badwan bypass near Manva

Nagar, a truck was was noticed coming from the opposite side and respondent

no.1 without caring started overtaking the truck. As a result of which,

respondent no.1 lost control and struck the same against the truck coming

from opposite side.

5. As a result of this collision, collision, vehicle was totally deranged and all

occupants sustained multiple injuries and Respondent no.1 -driver, driver, ran away

from the spot. All the injured were removed to local hospital at Basti, where

Sukhpal Singh, Mustafa and Laddu were declared dead and Ram Ch Chander ander

Dass and Rashid were admitted for treatment.

6. Three separate claim petitions were filed before the Ld. Tribunal for

awarding of compensation to the appellants/claimants. Since all these three

claim petitions pertain to common accident, all these th three ree were ordered to be

consolidated and a common order was passed. Claimants have been awarded

Rs.50,000/-in in each claim petition.

Appellants/ Claimant have filed the present petition, seeking enhancement

of the compensation as awarded by the Ld. Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 - Insurance

Company, while defending the impugned award passed by the Ld. Tribunal

submits that once the claim petition is filed itself under Section 166 of the

MV Act and claimant himself failed in proving the rash and negligent driving

3 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171

FAO-3138-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-461-2006(O&M)

of its driver, the claimant petition shall be dismissed, as the injured injured-claimant claimant

(appellant herein) is not entitled for any amount of compensation, as per law.

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for appellants/clai appellants/claimants mants submits that in

view of the amended provision of the Act, i.e. section 164 of the MV Act(un Act(un--

amended Section 163-A 163 A of the MV Act), the appellants/claimants are

entitled to the minimum compensation amount of Rs. 5 Lacs. To substantiate

his plea, counsel counsel relies upon the judgment of this court passed in FAO FAO-4708--

2004, titled as, as "Vijay Kumar Goyal vs. Pankaj Kumar and others",

decided on 13.08.2024.

9. While deciding issue no.1, Ld. Tribunal in paragraph no.40 of the

Award held in specific that respondent no.1 was not rash and negligent in

driving and cannot be held responsible for the accident. However, as a matter

of fact, it is no more in dispute that death of Mustafa and Ladoo, was the

result of the use of vehicle and the claim petitions arising from such an

accident is maintainable under section 164 of the MV Act. And, the Hon'ble

court has power to convert the claim petition filed by the claimant un under der

Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 to Section 164 of the MV Act, 1988,

wherein, rash and negligent driving is not required to be proved. This court in

Vijay Kumar Goyal's case(supra),has case(supra),has specially observed as under:

"8. While dealing with the argument of respondent No.2 - "8.

Insurance Company, this Court is guided with the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Ningamma v. United India

Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (13) SCC 710 : Law Finder Doc Id #

197440, wherein, the observations were made by the Hon'ble

4 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171

FAO-3138-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-461-2006(O&M)

Apex Court regarding the aims and objects purposes of the Apex

beneficial legislation to safeguard the interests of the victims

due to the vehicular accidents. The relevant observation

recorded therein, is reproduced here here-below:-

"25. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals

with "Just Compensation" and even if in the

pleadings no specific claim was made under

Section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion

a party should not be deprived from getting "Just

Compensation" in case the claimant is able to make

out a case under any provision of law. Needless to

say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation.

In fact, the court is duty bound and entitled to

award "Just Compensation" irrespective of the fact

whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the

claimant nt or not. However, whether or not the

claimants would be governed with the terms and

conditions of the insurance policy and whether or

not the provisions of Section 147 of the MVA would

be applicable in the present case and also whether

or not there was rash ash and negligent driving on the

part of the deceased, are essentially a matter of fact

which was required to be considered and answered

at least by the High Court.

5 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171

FAO-3138-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-461-2006(O&M)

26. While entertaining the appeal, no effort was

made by the High Court to deal with the aaforesaid foresaid

issues, and therefore, we are of the considered

opinion that the present ase should be remanded

back to the High Court to give its decision on the

aforesaid issues. The High Court was required to

consider the aforesaid issues even if it found that

the provision of Section 163A of MVA was not

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

present case. Since all the aforesaid issues are

purely questions of fact, we do not propose to deal

with these issues and we send the matter back to the

High Court urt for dealing with the said issues and to

render its decision in accordance with law. The

High Court will also consider the question of

quantum of compensation, if any, to which the

claimants might be entitled to, having regard to the

earning capacity of the deceased and "Just

Compensation", if any. Since the claim is a very old

claim, we request the High Court to consider the

matter as expeditiously as possible.

27. In terms of the aforesaid order, we remand back

both the matters to the High Court to di dispose spose of the

6 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171

FAO-3138-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-461-2006(O&M)

same. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the

aforesaid order."

Thus, by following the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court for the

purpose of following the aims and objects of the MV Act, 1988,

there is no negative law, to curtail the power of th this is Court, to

convert the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section

166 of the MV Act, 1988 to Section 164 of the MV Act, 1988,

wherein, proving of rash and negligent driving is not required to

be pleaded and proved.

9. It is admitted fact before this Court that in DDR No.7, dated

01.06.2001, there is mention of the registration number of the

scooter and from the findings recorded or from any other

evidence available on record, counsel representing respondent

No.2 - Insurance Company, could not poi point nt out any acceptable

evidence to say that injuries have not been suffered due to the

accident in question and the claim petition has been filed in

connivance with the scooter's driver/owner.Even otherwise also,

there is no finding given by the Ld. Tribuna Tribunall to say that the

injuries suffered by the appellant appellant-claimant claimant are for some other

reason than the accident pleaded by him in the claim petition.

10. xxxxxxx

11. Learned counsel for the appellant appellant-claimant claimant further submits

that since the MV Act, 1988, is benef beneficial icial in nature, the amended

provision of the said Act would be applicable for the pending

7 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171

FAO-3138-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-461-2006(O&M)

proceedings also before the Courts. Therefore, he submits that

in the present case, appellant-

appellant-claimant claimant is entitled to receive

compensation in view of Section 164 of the MV Act, 1988,

wherein, the claimant is not required to prove the rash and

negligent driving of anyone. The only requirement is the

happening of death or suffering of grievous hurt etc. due to any

accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Again, for

reference, provision of Section 164 of the MV Act, 1988, is

reproduced here-under:-

here

"164. Payment of compensation in case of death or

grievous hurt, etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything

contained in this Act or in any other law for the time

being in force rce or instrument having the force of law, the

owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall

be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due

to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a

compensation, of a sum of five llakh akh rupees in case of

death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous

hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub sub-section section (1),

the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish

that hat the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the

claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or

8 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171

FAO-3138-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-461-2006(O&M)

neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the

vehicle concerned or of any other person.

(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt du duee to an

accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle,

compensation has been paid under any other law for the

time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be

reduced from the amount of compensation payable under

this section."

10. Apart this, Learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants further

submits that in view of the amended provision of the Act, i.e. Section 164 of

the MV Act(un amended Act(un-amended Section 163 163-A A of the MV Act),the

appellants/claimants are entitled to the minimum amount of Rs.5.00 Lakhs in

each case. To substantiate his plea, Counsel relies upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Ram Murti and others v. Punjab State

Electricity Board,2023 ACJ 631:Law Finder id#2091451 id#2091451,and and submits that

for the accident took place on 12th April,1994,the amended provision of

Section 164 of the MV Act has been invoked by the Hon'ble Apex Court,

wherein there is a provision of awarding of compensation amount of Rs.5.00

Lakhs in case of death and in case of grievous hurt, the compensat compensation ion amount

is fixed as Rs. 2.5 Lakhs.

11. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the present appeals are

modified and disposed of. Consequently, the impugned award dated

23.02.2005 is hereby modified to the extent that appellants/claimants are

entitled to o a compensation amount of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lacs

9 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150171

FAO-3138-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-461-2006(O&M)

only)each in both the appeals, in view of the amended provision of Law i.e.

Section 164 of the MV Act.

Let the awarded amount of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs only) be

paid to the appellants-claimants appellants claimants within a period of three months from today

by respondent No.3-Insurance Insurance Company along with interest @ 7.5% per

annum, from the date of passing of this order ttill ill its final payment/realization.

Needless to mention that out of the total payable compensation

amount, already paid amount (if any) in compliance to the impugned award

would be adjusted.

Thus, by recording aforesaid terms, appeal stands disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), iif any shall also stand disposed

of.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected

case.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 07,, 2024 rashmi

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

10 of 10