Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kavita Devi And Ors vs Ranbir Singh And Ors on 19 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203
1. FAO-1607-2004
Decided on : 19.09.2024
Kavita Devi and others
. . . Appellant(s)
Versus
Ranbir Singh and others
. . . Respondent(s)
2. FAO-1608-2004 (O&M)
Smt. Khushi Devi and another
. . . Appellant(s)
Versus
Ranbir Singh and others
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
for respondent No.4 - Insurance Company.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. This one order shall dispose of aforementioned two appeals i.e.
FAO-1607-2004 and FAO-1608-2004 (O&M), filed by the
appellants/claimants, as both the appeals are interconnected, and have arisen
out of the same and common award.
2. FAO-1607-2004 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants
i.e. (1) Kavita Devi widow of Anil Kumar along with other
appellants/claimants (2) Mohit Kumar (minor son of the deceased), (3)
Shivani Devi (minor daughter of the deceased) & (4) Smt. Darshani Devi
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) -2-
w/o Pritam Lal and mother of deceased Anil Kumar, for enhancement of the
amount of compensation, ordered vide award dated 04.03.2004, passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (for brevity, 'Ld. Tribunal'),
whereby, claim petition i.e. MACT Case No.83 of 2002, under Section 163-
A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'MV Act'), had been partly
allowed by the Ld. Tribunal in death case.
FAO-1608-2004 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants
i.e. (1) Smt. Khushi Devi w/o Jai Pal (mother of the deceased Vinod Kumar),
and (2) Jai Pal (father of the deceased Vinod Kumar) for enhancement of the
amount of compensation, ordered vide award dated 04.03.2004, passed by
the Ld. Tribunal, whereby, claim petition i.e. MACT Case No.122 of 2002,
under Section 163-A of the MV Act, had been partly allowed by the Ld.
Tribunal in death case.
3. Few facts necessary for adjudication and extracted from FAO-
1607-2004 are noticed and detailed hereafter:-
On 03.02.2002 at about 7:00 P.M., Anil Kumar s/o Pritam Lal
was coming from Village Jubbal along with his brother-in-law Vinod Kumar
s/o Jai Pal on a motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-02A-1606. When
they reached near to Bus Stand Damla, a bus bearing registration No. HR-
37A-2383, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner and
without blowing any horn by respondent No.1 (driver herein), came from
behind and hit the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the motorcycle fell down
and both Anil Kumar and Vinod Kumar, were crushed under the tyres of the
offending bus and died on the spot.
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) -3-
4. Two separate claim petitions were filed before the Ld. Tribunal
for awarding of compensation to the appellants/claimants. In response
thereto, respondents have filed their respective replies, wherein, respondent
No.1 - driver, denied the factum of accident by pleading that no such
accident ever took place with the offending bus, at any time driven by him.
Respondents No.2 and 3, while taking preliminary objections,
had taken the stand that no accident had taken place on 03.02.2002 by the
offending bus, and thus, they are not liable to pay any amount of
compensation.
Respondent No.4 - Insurance Company, in written statement
had raised preliminary objections by denying the factum of accident and also
challenged the maintainability of the claim petitions. In alternative, the
insurance company also pleaded that driver of the offending bus was not
possessed with the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident
in question, which in result, is violation of the terms & conditions of the MV
Act and the Insurance Policy. The Insurance Company also stated that the
claimants have placed a false and concocted story before the Ld. Tribunal
just to receive compensation from the respondent - Insurance Company.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, Ld. Tribunal vide its order
dated 23.05.2003 framed the issues. However, issue No.1 was re-framed
vide order dated 16.02.2004, the details of which are as under:-
"1. Whether the accident dt. 3.2.2002 took place due to the
involvement of bus no. HR-37-A-2383 by respondent
no.1 Ranbir Singh, causing death of Anil Kumar s/o
Pritam and Vinod Kumar s/o jaipal ? OPP
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) -4-
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the
claimants are entitled to compensation, if so as to what
amount and from whom ? OPP
3. Whether the petitions are not maintainable ? OPR.
4. Whether the respondent no.1 was not holding valid any
effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR.
5. Relief."
6. After appreciating the evidences led by the parties and the
documents placed by them on record, the Ld. Tribunal, while deciding issue
No.1, in favour of the appellants/claimants, had made following
observations:-
"Issue No.1
13. The burden of proving this issue was upon the claimants.
To prove this issue, the claimants have examined PW2
Chander Gupt. Crl. Ahlmad of Ms. Ritu Y.K. Bahl, learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, who has categorically
deposed that criminal case bearing no. 72/A of 26.2.2003 titled
State Vs. Ranbeer Singh, bearing FIR No.13 dt. 3.2.03 under
Sections 279, 304-A IPC police-station Sadar, Yamuna-Nagar,
has been registered against Ranbir Singh/respondent No.1.
14. Likewise, one Mahender s/o Amar Singh, when
appeared in the witness-box as PW6, deposed that on 3.2.02, at
about 7.30 p.m. he was present on his shop at bus stop Damla.
This witness has categorically deposed that he was present out
side his shop and was standing. He saw a bus coming from the
side of Radaur, in a rash and high speed by its driver. Two
persons were going ahead of this bus. The motor cycle was on
its correct left side. The bus struck against the motor cycle and
ran over the occupants of the motor cycle. After causing the
accident, the driver of the bus stopped the bus for a while, but
thereafter he fled away from the place of accident. This
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) -5-
witness further deposed that he noted down the number of the
bus and the same is HR-37-A-2383. This witness has
specifically deposed that the accident took place due to the
rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus.
He had lodged the FIR and has proved certified copy of the
same as Ex.P14. In his cross-examination he has deposed that
there was a street light at the place of accident. This witness
has even been denied the suggestion put to him by the learned
counsel for the respondents that he has not seen the accident,
and also denied the suggestion that the accident had taken
place due to the negligence of the motor cyclist.
15. After hearing both the parties, I am of the considered
view that the accident took place on 3.2.2002, due to the
involvement of bus no.HR-37A-2383 being driven by
respondent no.1 on 3.2.2002 causing death of Anil Kumar and
Vinod Kumar. Although, respondent no.1 has denied the said
accident and his involvement as driver of bus no.HR-37-A-
2383, but this denial of respondent no.1 is falsified from the
copy of FIR Ex.P14 from which, it is clear that a criminal case
under Sections 279/304-A IPC is registered against him
regarding the same incident at P.S. Sadar Yamuna Nagar.
Similarly, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of eye-
witness PW-6 Mahender s/o Amar Singh regarding the said
accident involving the bus no.HR-37-A-2383 being driven by
respondent no.1 at the relevant time.
16. In the light of the discussion foregoing, issue no.1 is
decided in favour of the claimants and against the
respondents."
7. From the facts recorded in the reproduced paragraph, this Court
also notices that denial of respondent No.1 in regard to the happening of any
accident, stands falsified from the copy of FIR (Ex.P14). Even, the
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) -6-
statement of PW-6 Mahender s/o Amar Singh, regarding the said accident
involving the offending bus, being driven by respondent No.1, also
substantiate the factum of happening of accident and death of Anil Kumar
and Vinod Kumar due to the use of vehicle driven by respondent No.1.
8. The Insurance Company is not in a position to refute the fact
that against the driver of the offending bus namely; Ranbir Singh
(respondent No.1 herein), challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared
and same was filed before the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, which is available
on record of the Tribunal as Ex.P2.
9. 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 Section 163-A of the MV Act), the appellants/claimants
are entitled to the minimum compensation amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs. To
substantiate his plea, counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court passed
in FAO-4708-2004, titled as, "Vijay Kumar Goyal vs. Pankaj Kumar and
others", decided on 13.08.2024.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the record of the case.
This Court has no hesitation in holding that the death of Anil
Kumar and Vinod Kumar, was the result of the use of vehicle and the claim
petition arising from such an accident, is maintainable under Section 163-A
of the MV Act and now, under Section 164 of the MV Act. This Court, in
Vijay Kumar Goyal's case (supra), has specifically observed as under:-
"8. While dealing with the argument of respondent No.2
- Insurance Company, this Court is guided with the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Ningamma v. United India
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) -7-
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (13) SCC 710 : Law Finder Doc Id #
197440, wherein, the observations were made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court regarding the aims and objects purposes of the
beneficial legislation to safeguard the interests of the victims due
to the vehicular accidents. The relevant observation recorded
therein, is reproduced 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 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 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.
26. While entertaining the appeal, no effort
was made by the High Court to deal with the aforesaid
issues, and therefore, we are of the considered opinion
that the present case 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 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 dispose of the
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 this Court, to convert
the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the MV
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) -8-
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.
xx xxx xx xxx
xx xxx xx xxx
11. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant further
submits that since the MV Act, 1988, is beneficial in nature, the
amended provision of the said Act would be applicable for the
pending proceedings also before the Courts. Therefore, he
submits that in the present case, appellant-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:-
"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 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 lakh 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-section
(1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or
establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of
which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful
act or 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 due 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."
12. For strengthening his submissions, learned counsel
for the appellant also 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 Doc id #
2091451, and submits that for the accident took place on 12 th
April, 1994, the amended provision of Section 164 of the MV Act,
1988, 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
compensation amount is fixed as Rs.2.5 lakhs.
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) -9-
For consideration, the relevant part of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Murti's case (supra),
is reproduced here-under:-
"Leave granted.
2. The appeal has arisen from a judgment of a
Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
dated 10 March 2009 in FAO No 1461 of 1994.
3. The High Court was considering an appeal
arising from an award of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bhatinda dated 12 April 1994. The Tribunal
dismissed the application filed by the appellants under
section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However,
the claim under Section 140 was allowed and the
appellants were held entitled to receive an amount of Rs
25,000 on account of the death of Ved Parkash.
4. The High Court has affirmed the judgment of the
Tribunal in regard to the dismissal of the claim under
section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However,
having due regard to the amendment of the provisions of
Section 140 in 1994, the amount payable has been
enhanced from Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000.
5. We have heard Mr Narender Singh Yadav,
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms
Uttara Babbar, counsel for the respondent.
6. There is no cogent basis for this Court to
entertain the challenge against the findings of fact which
have been recorded concurrently by the Tribunal and by
the High Court while dismissing the claim under section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
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 lakhs and in the case of grievous hurt of
Rs 2.5 lakhs.
8. We are inclined to give the appellants the benefit
of 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 lakhs 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 lakhs if no amount has been
paid) shall be paid over to the appellants by 30 November 2022.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of."."
11. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the present appeals are
allowed. Consequently, the impugned award dated 4.3.2004 is hereby
modified to the extent that appellants/claimants are entitled to a
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125999
FAO-1607-2004
FAO-1608-2004 (O&M) - 10 -
compensation amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs each (Rupees Five Lacs only), in
view of amended provision of law i.e. Section 164 of the MV Act, 1988.
12. Let the awarded amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs (each) be paid to the
appellants/claimants (in both the appeals) within a period of three months from
today by respondent No.4 - Insurance Company.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants urges
for granting interest @ 9% per annum, in case of default of payment of
compensation amount by respondent No.4 - Insurance Company.
13. I have considered the cited judgments and find that they are silent
about the interest part. However, considering the date of accident and amended
provision of law, it is directed and made clear that in case, the respondent No.4
- Insurance Company does not pay the compensation amount within the
stipulated period, as recorded above, in that eventuality, respondent No.4 -
Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation amount along
with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of passing of this order till its
final payment/realization.
Thus with aforesaid modifications, both appeals stand
disposed of.
Misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected
case.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
September 19, 2024
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
10 of 10
