Punjab-Haryana High Court

Smt. Kesar vs Hari Parkash on 8 November, 2024

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                                            Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152636


                                       1
FAO-346-2006 (O&M)



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                 FAO-346-2006(O&M)
                                 Date of Decision: November 08, 2024

Smt. Kesar                                                     ......Appellant

                                 Vs.

Hari Parkash and others                                        ......Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:     Mr. Ayush Bansal, Advocate for Mr Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate
             for respondent No. 3-National Insurance company

             Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate
             for respondent No. 4-Oriental Insurance company

             ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

10.11.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant

before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short, 'the Tribunal')

was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.06.2001, Krishan, who was

conductor on Truck No. HR-19-2030 was coming from Charkhi Dadri to Sirsa

after loading the truck, which was being driven by Satish and one labourer was

travelling with them. When they reached in the area of village Patli Dabar on G.T.

Road, then one truck bearing registration No. RJ-13-G-0837 came from the front

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152636

FAO-346-2006 (O&M)

side, being driven by Madan Lal in a rash and negligent manner and struck his

truck with the aforesaid truck. As a result of this accident, both the drivers of the

vehicles died on the spot. F.I.R No. 103 dated 21.06.2001 under Sections

279/337/427/304-A of IPC was registered at P.S. Ding against the driver of the

truck No. RJ-13-G-0837.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied

the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following

issues:-

1. Whether Madan Lal son of Prabhu Ram died in a road accident

which took place on 21.06.2001 in the area of the village Patli

Dabar by use of Truck No. HR-19-2030 and truck No. RJ-13-G-

0837 as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the driver of the truck No. RJ-13-G-0837 was not

holding a valid driving licence and if so, to what effect? OPR-3

3. Whether the driver of Truck No. HR-19-2030 was not holding a

valid driving licence and if so, to what effect? OPR-4

4. Whether this petitioner is entitled to an award of compensation

and if so for how much and from whom? OPP.

5. Relief."

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on

record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the

claimant/appellant. Hence the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant

of compensation.

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152636

FAO-346-2006 (O&M)

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the claim

petition was dismissed only on the ground that there was a delay of 22 days in

registration of F.I.R. Since the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed and

Issue No. 1 was decided against her, therefore, the income portion was never

discussed in the claim petition and this case pertains to the burnt category of the

year 2006-2007. Therefore, he prays that his case be dealt with under Section 164

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 because if the case is remanded to the Tribunal, it

will cause further delay in disposal.

7. He further submitted that Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

is now substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019

w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be enhanced as per the substituted

statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act.

8. He further submitted that the present case is covered by the judgment

rendered by this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as "Akaljit Kaur and

Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others." wherein the claim under Section 163-A

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) by relying upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State

Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] wherein it was held that Section 164 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) provides for payment

of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case of

grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company,

however, vehemently argues that the claim petition has rightly been dismissed.

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152636

FAO-346-2006 (O&M)

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole

record of this case.

11. So far as the delay of 22 days in lodging the FIR is concerned,

Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan

and others, 2011(4) SCC 693, wherein it has been held that delay in lodging of

FIR should not be treated as fatal for motor accident claim proceedings, if the

claimant is able to demonstrate satisfactorily and with cogent reasons for such

delay. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-

"20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a

ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they

are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station

immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities

occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more

importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station.

Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with

promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR

thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the

courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in

doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If

court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been

concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is

a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on

that ground.

21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to

intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of

FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152636

FAO-346-2006 (O&M)

case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for

rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital

in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not

be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to

demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of

reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of

the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are

composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be

condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much

more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent

reasons."

12. A perusal of the award indicates that in the present case the claimant

filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of her

husband in the accident. Since section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now

substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f

01.04.2022) and compensation should be enhanced as per the substituted statutory

provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act, therefore, the appellant herein is entitled to be

granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter

11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death

in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

13. Further, this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as "Akaljit Kaur

and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others" held as under:-

"11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and

others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] held

that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial

provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152636

FAO-346-2006 (O&M)

Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death

in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5

lakhs.

12. This Court in FAO-195-2006 titled as Mamta and Others

Vs. Happy and Others, decided on 29.05.2024, held that since Motor

Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into

the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or

petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only

the irregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. It has

been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to

the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be

compensated. Still the Court should make every effort by exercising

its discretion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be

shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with

intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy.

The Court decision should be such that they strengthen the trust and

confidence of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary."