Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Paramjit Kaur And Anr on 20 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYA NA AT CHANDIGARH
278 FAO-6138-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.11.2024
National Insurance Company Ltd ... Appellant
Versus
Paramjit Kaur & Anr ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 proceeded against ex parte
vide order dated 27.01.2016.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company challenging the award dated 04.05.2015 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988').
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the
sake of brevity.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would
contend that the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on
the higher side inasmuch as under Section 163-A of the 'Act of 1988', the
income of the deceased could not exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum and the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151832
Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per
month i.e. Rs.72,000/- per annum and hence vide the impugned award the
compensation has been awarded on the higher side. He has also placed
reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Murti & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2023 ACJ 631] to
contend that in such case of death, Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded a
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 states
that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and there is no scope
for interference with the impugned award.
5. Heard.
6. Since the claim petition pertains to Section 163-A of the Act of
1988, learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not dispute the fact that the
income of the deceased under the said provision could not exceed Rs.40,000/-
per annum whereas the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.72,000/- per annum. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also does
not dispute the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ram Murti (supra), wherein it has been held as under :
"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/-.
8. We are inclined to give the appellants the benefit of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151832
the beneficial provisions which have been enacted by
Parliament. Hence, in modification of the order of the
High Court, we direct that the 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."
7. Further, vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 32 of 2019
Chapter X stands omitted and substituted by Chapter XI. Section 163-A falls
in Chapter X of the unamended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the same has
now been replaced by Section 164 and in view thereof, the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti (supra) would be fully
applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the claim petition was filed
under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 there would be no question of future
prospects.
8. In view of the above, the present appeal stands allowed and the
impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimant-respondent No.1
would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and rest of the impugned
award is upheld. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
20.11.2024
jk ( ALKA SARIN )
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
3 of 3
