Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Kaur And Anr vs Surender Singh And Anr on 20 November, 2024

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153583


FAO-4232-2006                                         1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 FAO-4232-2006 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision: November 20, 2024

NARINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER                                   ......Appellant(s)
                                                      Vs.

SURINDER SINGH AND ANR.                                         ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:    Ms. Gutika Rani, Advocate
            for the appellants.

            Mr. V.K. Garg, Advocate
            for the respondent-Insurance Company.

            ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2006 but no one has put in

appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.

2. Previously vide order dated 18.07.2024 in FAO No.1682 of 2007, this

Court had already issued directions to the Insurance Companies that in the event,

any of their empanelled counsel fails to appear, the Court would request the counsel

empanelled with the Insurance Companies, who is present in the Court to assist in

the matters. Further, the concerned Insurance Companies were directed to disburse

the current scheduled fees to the counsel engaged by this Court for assisting in the

matters, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.

3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. V.K. Garg, Advocate accepts notice on

behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has handed over copy of the paper-

book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for respondent- Insurance

Company.

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153583

5. In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007,

the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to

Mr. V.K.Garg, Advocate, the counsel engaged by this Court in the present case. The

Insurance Company is directed to pay the scheduled fees to Mr. V.K.Garg,

Advocate, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of

this order.

FAO No. 4232-2006

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

28.04.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for

short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellants, on

account of death of Phuman Singh in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on

03.05.2002, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants

to the tune of Rs.1,27,000/- alongwith interest 6% per annum.

7. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to

quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of

the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

8. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends as under:-

i) That the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants is on the lower

side, as Phuman Singh (since deceased) was 22 years old at the time of accident.

ii) That Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is 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.

iii) 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

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153583

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, however, vehemently

argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as

assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He thus prayed for

dismissal of the appeal

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

record of this case.

11. A perusal of the award indicates that in the present case, the

claimants/appellants filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of

death of Phuman Singh who was about 22 years of age at the time of alleged

accident. The Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1200/- per

month. 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 appellants herein are 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 of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

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

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

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153583

"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

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."