FAO-1289-2002 -1- 264 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1289-2002 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 TARA SINGH ... APPELLANT VS. RAGHBIR SINGH ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. **** PARMOD GOYAL , J. (ORAL) Present first appeal has been filed by the appellant who is the brother of Tarsem Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Deceased’), being aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide award dated 4.10.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) solely on the ground that he is not entitled to seek compensation as he was not dependent on the deceased, being an adult and earning member. 2. The appellant filed the claim petition under Section 163-A asserting that deceased, his elder brother aged 45 years died in motor vehicular road accident dated 05.07.2000. It is the case of the appellant that the deceased was working as a driver and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. That on 05.07.2000 at about 1.30 A.M., the deceased was driving the truck bearing No. HP-24-2615 on the Kirtarpur Sahib-Bilaspur Road. When he CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1289-2002 -2- reached in the area of village Nallian near Swarghat, the truck met with an accident and fell into a Khad which was 500 feet deep. It was further pleaded that since the accident had taken place on account of use of vehicle No.HP-24-2615 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) during the course of his employment under respondent No.1, the appellant, being the brother of the deceased, was entitled to claim compensation. 3. The learned Tribunal found that the accident dated 05.07.2000 had occurred on account of use of the offending truck. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the appellant was not dependent of the deceased. The issue whether an adult earning member, though not a dependent upon the deceased, is entitled to file a claim petition seeking compensation is no longer res integra. 4. Courts in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr., 1987 (3) SCC (234), wherein brother of deceased claimed compensation, in Gafaran & Ors. Vs. Tilakraj Kapur & Ors., 2005 ACJ 1711, wherein two married sisters of the deceased, who were not dependent on deceased had claimed compensation, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ramya Raghavan & Anr., 2006 ACJ 2347, wherein petitioner was a married daughter, Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., 2007 (10) SCC 643, and in Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 3296-3270 of 2007, wherein a charitable society claimed compensation for the death of a “Brother” of the society in a motor car accident, Courts had held that Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where the death has resulted from the accident, the claim can be preferred by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. This CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1289-2002 -3- provision does not speak of dependents or all such legal representatives being dependent on the deceased. Any legal representative of the deceased can prefer claim before the Tribunal irrespective of he being dependent or not dependent on the deceased. Thus from the above discussed noted judgments, it is clear that a married sister / daughter, earning brother / son, a brother / son who is living separately or even a charity can seek compensation before the MACT. 5. In Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance company Ltd. & Anr., 2007 (10) SCC 643, it was held that legal representatives of deceased shall only be entitled to compensation payable for loss of estate alone. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India however, in Civil Appeal Nos. 242-243 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 976-977 of 2020) titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender & Ors., decided on 13.01.2020 after referring to Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance company Ltd. & Anr., (supra) had held : “….. In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between “right to apply for compensation” and “entitlement to compensation.” The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1289-2002 -4- exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning. 15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meager income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” 6. Keeping in view facts in above noted case Hon’ble Supreme Court after determining annual income & future prospects, thereafter deducting 1/3 towards living expenses applied multiplier of 13 (keeping in view age of deceased who was also 48 years old) had awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. 7. In present case appellant-claimant, aged 47 years, is the brother of the deceased. Facts of the present case are similar to facts of case titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender & Ors, (supra). Therefore, appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation. 8. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that appellant is CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1289-2002 -5- entitled to Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 164 of 1988 Act amended w.e.f. 01.04.2022 as claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of 1988 Act. Accident had taken place on 27.10.2002. Claim petition was filed under Section 163A of 1988 Act. It is also not in dispute that w.e.f. 01.04.2022, amended Section 164 of 1988 Act came in force, whereby a fix amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for no fault liability was made effective. The only question which requires adjudication is whether the amended Section 164 of 1988 Act would be applicable as to grant compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in case wherein accident had taken place prior to 01.04.2022. 9. The above noted issue is not res integra. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roopa Vs. The Manager, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd. and Anr., Civil Appeal No.6797 of 2026 decided on 27.04.2026; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Halder, 2025 ACJ 244; and K.R. Jagadish and Anr. Vs. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr., 2025 ACJ 188 has dealt this very issue and has concluded that since 1988 Act is beneficial legislation and amendment under Section 164 is procedural in nature, therefore, the compensation as amended under Section 164 can be awarded to appellants-claimants who had filed their petition under Section 163-A in accident which had occurred prior to 01.04.2022. In view of authoritative pronouncement by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clearly made out that Section 164 of 1988 Act being procedural amendment would be retrospective in nature and appellants-claimants would be entitled to receive compensation mandated therein. 10. Appeal is accordingly allowed. It is held that appellant(s)- claimant(s) is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1289-2002 -6- the date of filing of claim petition till its realization as was awarded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled K.R. Jagadish and Anr. Vs. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr. (supra). Liability to pay compensation shall be of both the respondents. They shall pay compensation jointly and severally. 11. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 13.07.2026 smriti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document