FAO-3016-2001 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 FAO-3016-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 SUKHJINDER KAUR & OTHERS ....APPELLANTS VERSUS PAL SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. V. K. Garg, Advocate for respondent No.4. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. A perusal of the Award shows that respondents have been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants jointly and severally under ‘no-fault liability’. Insurance Company is already represented by its counsel and there is thus no necessity to issue notice to respondents No.2 and 3 and issuance of notice to respondents No.2 and 3 is dispensed with. 2. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 02.02.2001 for enhancement of the compensation awarded in MACT Case No. 52-T/99 of 08.12.91 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of no-fault liability alongwith interest from the date of accident till realization on account of the death VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:— “1. Whether the death of Kashmir Singh Head Constable was caused in a bus accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PBP-7898 by respondent Pal Singh on 11.11.1994?. OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation on account of death of Kashmir Singh Head Constable in bus accident on 11.11.1994? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 Pal Singh was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?. 4. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the file, the learned Tribunal under issue No.1 held that deceased had not died due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No.PBP-7898 by respondent No.1 and infact he tried to alight from the moving bus and fell during the process resulting in his death. Consequently, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the claimants under no fault liability under issue No.2. Under issue No.3, it has been held that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence and all the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document does not dispute the finding on issue No.1 but since deceased fell from the bus being driven by respondent No.1 and got crushed under the rear tyre, his death took place on account of use of vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that initially the claim petition was filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act and now Section 164 has been inserted in place of Section 163-A in the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which, the claimants are entitled to the compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of a person under ‘no fault liability’. Learned counsel further contended that Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 ACJ 631 Ram Murti & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board has retrospectively applied the provision contained in Section 164 of the Act and has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to claimants in the case of death which had taken place prior to Motor Vehicles (Amendment) vide Act No.32 of 2019 and the claimants too are thus entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the judgment in Ram Murti’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case and sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation and there is no scope for further enhancement. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti’s case (supra) has 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.2,50,000/-. 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.5,00,000/- 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." 10. In Ram Murti’s case (supra), the petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which had been dismissed and the accident had taken place on 23.05.1991 when Section 164 of Act had not come into existence. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial provision and applied the beneficial provision of Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act retrospectively in cases of no-fault liability under Section 163-A and awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimant. 11. In the present case, the accident took place on 11.11.1994, resulting in the death of Kashmir Singh on account of use of vehicle bearing No.PBP-7898. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act which was dismissed. Now, the amendment in Motor Vehicles Act has came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide which Section 163-A of the Act has been repealed and replaced by Section 164 of the Act. However, before this amendment came into force, the Government by way of Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019, vide Act No.32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.09.2019 had replaced Section 163-A of the Act with Section 164 and as such, Section 164 had infact come into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, under which claimants VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document view law laid down in Ram Murti’s case (supra), it is held that the claimants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of Kashmir Singh as against Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs. 5,00,000/- - Rs. 50,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came into force i.e. 01.09.2019, till realization, payable by respondents-Insurance Company and owner of the vehicle in question. 13. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondents/Insurance Companies in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Companies shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 14. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 22.07.2026 JUDGE Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document