FAO-4116-2001 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 212 FAO-4116-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.08.2026 NARESH KUMAR ....APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Naveen Jhajholia, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents-UOI. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 02.06.2001 passed in MACT Case No.1 of 1999 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- x 2) has been awarded as compensation to the claimant under ‘no-fault liability’ alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of accident till realization on account of death of his wife and son namely Aruna and Vipul, in a motor vehicular accident. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4116-2001 (O&M) - 2- learned Tribunal:— “1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.89D-80722H-LPT-5031ASC BTN by respondent No.3 as alleged?. OPP 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation if any to what amount and from whom?OPR 3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable?OPR. 4. Relief.” 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the file, the Tribunal under issue no.1 came to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of claimant himself and accordingly, it was held that he is not entitled to any compensation except under “no fault liability” and he was awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- each on account of death of his wife and son and total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded and all the respondents are held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant jointly and severally. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 6. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the award passed by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises and learned Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the claimant merely on the assumption that the police after conducting investigation has challaned him for causing the accident by way of his rash and negligent driving. Learned counsel next contended that even if PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document part, he is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation as Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-each as compensation on account of death of his wife and son which took place on account of use of vehicle owned by respondents in which rashness and negligence is not to be looked into. Learned counsel next contended that initially the claim petition was filed under Section 166 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 claimant is entitled to the compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- each 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 claimant too is thus entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each. 7. 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. 8. 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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 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." 9. In Ram Murti’s case (supra), the petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which had been dismissed. 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. 10. In the present case, the accident took place on 12.04.1998, resulting in the death of Aruna and Vipul on account of use of vehicle bearing No. 89D-80722H-LPT-5031ASC BTN. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal, while declining compensation under Section 166 on the ground of rash and negligent driving on the part of claimant awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- each under the then prevailing “no-fault liability” provision. 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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and as such, Section 164 had infact come into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, under which claimant is entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, in view law laid down in Ram Murti’s case (supra), it is held that the claimant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each on account of death of his wife and son i.e. Aruna and Vipul as against Rs.50,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs. 10,00,000/- - Rs. 1,00,000/-) 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 jointly and severally. 12. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 27.08.2026 JUDGE Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document