Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kitabo & Ors vs Manjeet Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-488-2006 (O&M)
Reserved on : 28.02.2025
Pronounced on : 06.03.2025
Smt. Kitabo and others ......Appellants
Vs.
Manjeet Singh and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mrs. Shamsher Kaur, Advocate,
for respondent No.5-Insurance Company.
Mr. Akhil Saini, Advocate, for
Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent No.7-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
13.05.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Rohtak (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the
appellants/claimants for grant of compensation, was dismissed.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. The brief facts of the case are that Satish Kumar (since
deceased) was working as a truck driver. On 05.08.2002, he was driving
truck bearing registration No.HR-55A-0394 from Delhi to Jodhpur. At
around 01:15 A.M., when he reached near Bhomiaji Than on Nagore Road,
which falls under Mandore Police Station, Jodhpur, another truck bearing
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -2-
registration No.PB-13G-6634 was coming from Jodhpur to Nagore and both
trucks collided head-on. As a result thereof, both trucks drivers died on the
spot. Satish's body was taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, for a
postmortem. After postmortem, it was handed over to his family members.
In this regard, FIR No.155 dated 05.08.2002, was registered under Sections
279, 337 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and
filed their written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed
the following issues:-
"1. Whether Satish Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest
of the petitioners died in a motor vehicular accident, as
alleged in the petition, if so its effect? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the petitioners are
entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
3. Whether the respondent No.1 Manjit Singh and
deceased Satish Kumar had no valid and effective driving
licences at the relevant time to drive their respective
vehicles, as alleged by respondents No.5 and 7 in their
respective written statements? OPR5 and 7.
4. Whether the insured and their drivers had
contravened any terms and conditions of the insurance
policy of the vehicles in question, as alleged by the
5. Relief."
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -3-
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the
present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that
the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that claim petition was
filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but deceased-
Satish Kumar was stated to be earning Rs.3,500/- per month, as per
statements of PW1-Kitabo and PW2-Hukam Singh, parents of the deceased-
Satish Kumar. Since, the appellants/claimants pleaded the salary/income of
deceased-Satish Kumar was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, therefore, the
appellants/claimants could not take the benefit under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, which is meant for legal representatives of the deceased,
whose income was upto Rs.40,000/- per annum.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award dated
13.05.2005 and submits that the award has rightly been dismissed by the
learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
9. The relevant portion of the award dated 13.05.2005 is
reproduced as under:-
"Issues No. 1 and 2.
13. Both these issues are inter-connected, hence taken
up together. During the course of arguments, learned
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -4-
counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the
averments made by the respondents No. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 the
accident is an admitted fact and that claimants being
successor-in-interest of Satish driver deceased are entitled
to get the compensation in terms of section 163-A of the
Act from the respondents No.5 and 7 being insurer of both
the truck, which was being driven by Satish driver.
Learned counsel also relied upon the observations made in
New India Assurance Company Ltd. versus Shyamo
Chuhan and others, 2005(1) Accident Compensation
Judicial Reports 520, which has been refuted by the other
side i.e. counsel for respondent-insurance companies that
petition is not maintainable under section 163-A of the Act
in view of income mentioned of the deceased Satish driver
and that the FIR was also against him that the accident
was caused due to his own rash and negligent driving and
that there is collusion between the claimants and other
respondents and they also relied upon the observations
made in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others versus United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004, ACJ, 934.
14. In New India Assurance's case (Supra) it has been
observed that under no fault liability the insurer is liable to
pay the compensation to legal heirs of deceased under
section 163-A of the Act even deceased was driver of motor
vehicle in question.
15. In Deepal's case (Supra) it has been observed that
provisions of section 163-A of the Act could be invoked
only when the income of the deceased is Rs.40,000/-. Other
claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter
XII of the Act.
16. There is also a dispute between the parties with
regard to respondent No.1 Manjeet Singh son of Bawa
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -5-
Ram being driver of truck bearing No. PB-13G-6634. FIR
of this case has been tendered as Ex. PA. Its perusal shows
that Satish driver of truck No. HR-55-A-0394 died on the
spot. He was also found responsible for causing said
accident with another truck bearing registration No.PB-
13G-6634, whose driver also expired at the spot. Meaning
thereby both the drivers died in this accident. The specific
name of the driver of the other truck has not been
mentioned. However, driving licence of Manjeet Singh was
found in the documents placed in that truck. No eye
witness to this accident has been examined. However, on
behalf of respondent-insurance company No.7 examined
Harjit Singh, IPS, retired investigator as RW2, who has
stated that he has also investigated this case and visited
the place of occurrence and also collected the record of the
police and he submitted his report dated 5.2.2003 finding
Resham Singh deceased as driver of truck bearing No.PB-
13G-6634 and that Manjeet Singh was sitting on his left
side and the truck had collided with another truck bearing
registration No.HR-55-0394. He proved his report Ex.R1.
17. Petitioners have arrayed respondent No.1 Manjeet
Singh showing him as deceased driver of truck bearing No.
PB-13G-6634, but he himself appeared as respondent No.1
and also submitted his written statement, but pleading his
no negligence and that it was negligence of the other truck
driver. His this version is not acceptable. Since truck
driver of PB-13G-6634 expired on the driver-seat itself as
mentioned in FIR and thus it is made out that said Manjeet
Singh was also sitting in the truck and his driving licence
was found in the documents kept in driver's cabin, which
all goes to show that Manjeet Singh has been falsely
introduced as driver of the said truck by claimants and its
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -6-
owner and attorney i.e. respondent No.2 and 4 as
submitted in the report Ex. R1. So, it is made out that the
deceased driver of the said truck bearing No. PB-13G-
6634 was Resham Singh and not Manjeet Singh respondent
No.1.
18. Thus, for the reasons given above, it is made out that
Satish Kumar and Resham Singh both the driver of the said
truck lost their lives in this accident.
19. As regards compensation, the claimants being LRs of
Satish deceased have filed this petition under section 163-
A of the Act. They have pleaded deceased's income being
Rs.3500/- per month and have also sought compensation to
the tune of Rs.6,12,000/- in claim petition. Kitabo herself
appeared as PW1 and stated that her son Satish aged
about 25 years used to earn Rs.3500/- per month as driver
of respondent No.6. His father Hukam Singh claimant as
PW2 also deposed to the same effect. Meaning thereby
claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased, Satish
Rs.42,000/- per annum, so they cannot seek any
compensation in terms of section 163-A of the Act which is
meant for Legal representatives of the deceased whose
annual income was upto Rs. 40,000/- as held in Deepal's
case (Supra).
20. So, in these circumstances, it is made out that the
petition not maintainable in the present form in view of the
pleaded income and the recourse available to the
petitioners, was to file a petition under section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act. So, no compensation could be
assessed. Accordingly, both these issues stand decided
against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -7-
21. As regards this issue, the petitioners claimed
Manjeet Singh respondent No.1 as driver of truck bearing
No. PB-13G-6634 and Satish of HR-55A-0394. It has been
held in foregoing issues that it was Resham Singh and not
Manjeet Singh respondent No.1, who was driving the truck
bearing No. PB-13G-6634 at the time of accident and
expired at the spot. So, it is to be seen whether Resham
Singh and Satish deceased were having any valid driving
licence. Driving licence of Satish deceased has not been
brought on record by the petitioners-claimants. However,
RW1 Ravinder Singh, Clerk, DIO office, Ferozepur
(Punjab) stated that Resham Singh son of Sohan Singh was
issued learning licence No.29380 dated 11.12.2000 for
scooter, LTV only and then for HTV on 8.5.2002 and that
this licence was valid from 27.2.2001 to 26.2.2004 and
produced photocopy in this regard as Ex.R5. RW2 Harjeet
Singh investigator also stated that he has investigated this
case about genuineness of driving licence of Resham Singh
so submitted by the claimants who admitted him being
driver of the said truck instead of Manjeet Singh. He
further stated that he had checked the office record of DTO
and examined various witnesses and copy of driving
licence No.8556 and 29380 which were part of the report
dated 10.12.2003, Ex.R2 and relevant documents Ex.R3
and Ex. R4. In the cross-examination he admitted that in
report Ex.R2 at page 5, licence No.8556 has been shown
genuine. He then stated that said report was found false
subsequently.
22. Thus, in these circumstances, in view of entries
Ex.R3/R5 and other entries Ex.R4/R6 regarding issuance
of learning licence under licence No.29380, it is made out
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -8-
that learning licence under said number was issued to
Balbir son of Kehar Singh and in the entry No.8556
(Ex.R3) Resham Singh son of Sohan Singh has been shown
the said entry No.29380 dated 11.12.2000 in respect of
issuing learning licence to him which was factually wrong,
which all goes to shows that said Resham Singh was not
having any valid driving licence.
23. As regards possessing driving licence by respondent
No.1 Manjeet Singh, claimants brought the same as Ex.PC
and there is no report to the contrary by the other side and
meaning thereby the said Manjeet Singh respondent No.1
was having a valid driving licence when the accident took
place. Hence, this issue is decided accordingly.
24. The onus to prove this issue was on the respondents
No.5 and 7, but their counsel did not press these issues
during the course of arguments. Hence, both these issues
are decided against these respondents."
A perusal of the above shows that the learned Tribunal decided
Issues No.1 and 2 against the appellants/claimants and in favour of the
respondents, whereas, issues No.3 and 4 are decided against the respondents.
10. A perusal of the award shows that learned Tribunal, while
dismissing the claim petition observed that in the claim petition, the income
of the deceased was shown to be Rs.3,500/- per month. By taking his
earning to be Rs.3,500/- per month, the annual income of the deceased was
calculated as Rs.42,000/- per annum. Since, there is a cap of Rs.40,000/- per
annum under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the claim
petition of the appellants/claimants was dismissed.
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -9-
11. This Court vide judgment dated 17.05.2024 passed in FAO-
407-2006, titled as 'Satpal Vs. Daljit Singh and others' held as under:-
"13. The claim petitions are drafted by the Advocates and it is
standard practice to state the maximum earnings and amount of
compensation in the pleadings. The Court/Tribunal should
appreciate the evidence led on oath, rather than strictly
adhering to the pleadings. The present claim petition was
dismissed solely on the stated earning of Rs.6,000/- in the
pleadings, completely discarding the evidence presented. This
indicates a manifest failure to apply judicial mind. Therefore,
the present appeal is allowed. The appellant/claimant is granted
compensation under Section 163-A by taking his income to be
Rs.3,000/- per month."
12. 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 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
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -10-
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."
13. In view of the above referred to judgments, this Court is now
converting the present claim petition filed under Sections 163-A (pre-
amendment i.e 2019 amendment w.e.f 01.04.2022) to Section 164 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (amended by the Act 32 of 2019). Keeping in
view the 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 lakh and in the case grievous hurt to the extent
of Rs.2.5 lakh. The appellants/claimants are held liable to compensation to
the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.
CONCLUSION
14. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award
dated 13.05.2005 is hereby set aside and the appellants/claimants are held
entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.
15. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State
Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the
FAO-488-2006 (O&M) -11-
appellants/claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the
compensation amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of
its realization.
16. The respondent No.5-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the amount of compensation along with interest with the learned Tribunal
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of
compensation along with interest in the accounts of the appellants/claimants
in equal share. The appellants/claimants are directed to furnish their bank
accounts details to the learned Tribunal.
17. Respective respondent-Insurance Companies are hereby
directed to disburse the current scheduled fee to Mrs. Shamsher Kaur,
Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Goyal, Advocate, within a period of 20 days
from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, in view of the order
dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 by this Court.
18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
06.03.2025
Virrendra
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
