Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh And Anr vs Pargat Singh And Ors on 31 January, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-2010-20066 (O&M) -1-
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO
FAO-2010-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision ::-31.01.2025
Tarsem Singh and Another ....Appellants
VERSUS
Pargat Singh and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Ms. Gaganbir Kaur Kahlon, Advocate for
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Shubham Gupta and Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocates
for Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA,
SHARMA J.
CM-1199-CII-2025
This is an application for early hearing in the main appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed
allowed.. With the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main case i.e. FAO
FAO-2010
2010 of 2006 is
taken on Board today itself.
FAO-2010-2006
2006 (O&M)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against award dated 19.12.2005
passed in claim petition filed under Sections 163
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, 'the
Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants/appellants,
claimants/appellants
who are legal heirs of the deceased.
FAO-2010-20066 (O&M) -2-
2. 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 is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED
LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
3. Learned counsel for the claimants-
claimants-appellants
appellants has made the following
submissions:-
i) That
hat the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on
the lower side.
ii) That Section 163-A
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.
iii) That the present case is covered by the judgment
rendered
dered by this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006,, titled as
"Akaljit
Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others."
Others
wherein the claim under Section 163
163-A
A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f
.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
herein 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
TRIPTI SAINI Rs.5 lakhs and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs.
FAO-2010-20066 (O&M) -3-
He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the amount
of compensation be enhanced.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
respondent-Insurance
Insurance Company,
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.
Therefore, he prays for dismissal of appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
6. A perusal of the award indicates that in the present case the claimants
filed the claim petition seeking compensation
compensation on account of the death of Paramjit
Singh,, who was 14-15 years old, at the time of accident.. The Tribunal observed
that in the absence of any proof of notional income, a sum of Rs.
Rs.1,50,000/- is to be
awarded in the interest of justice. Since Section 163
163-A
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
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 case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in case grievous hurt
of Rs.2.5 lakh..
7. Further, this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006
2006, titled as "Akaljit
Akaljit Kaur
and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others"
Others" held as under:
under:-
"11.
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and
others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] held
TRIPTI SAINI that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial
FAO-2010-20066 (O&M) -4-
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 iin
n 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
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
judiciary."
."
8. In view of the above, the
the claimants/appellants are held entitled to
compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, which shall be distributed as per the same
ratio as awarded by the Tribunal in its award dated 19.12.2005 .
9. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'bl
Hon'blee Supreme
Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176
and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants
TRIPTI SAINI claimants are granted the interest @
FAO-2010-20066 (O&M) -5-
9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition
petition,, till
the date of its realization.
realization
10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of
compensation alongwith
alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months
from the date of receipt
re of copy of judgment at the first instance
instance, with liberty to
recover the same from respondent No.2 (owner of the offending vehicle)
vehicle),, as per
award dated 19.12.2005.
19.12.2005 The appellants-claimants
claimants are directed to furnish their
bank account details to the Insurance
Insurance Company/Tribunal. The Tribunal is further
directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in
the bank accounts of the appellants-claimants
appellants as per ratio settled in the award dated
19.12.2005.
11. In view of the order passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 dated
18.07.2024, the insurance company is hereby directed to disburse the current
scheduled fee to Mr. D.P.Gupta,, Advocate within a period of twenty days from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
12. Disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
January 25, 2025
202 (SUDEEPTI
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
es/No
