IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 FAO-3134-2003 Decided on : 02.09.2026 SINDRO DEVI AND ORS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SURINDER AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, Advocate for the appellants. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded under no fault liability by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 14.03.2003 on account of death of Ram Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in motor vehicular accident dated 11.10.2001 allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving motorcycle bearing registration No.HR 05H 9613 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’). 2. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has tried to challenge finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 whereby learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that appellants-claimants had failed to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent-driver but had succeeded in proving that deceased had died on account of use of offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 who was owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has argued that RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.09.03 12:28 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-3134-2003 -2- learned Tribunal had erred in appreciating evidence of PW-7 Ram Pal as well as that of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh. 4. However, perusal of evidence goes to show that both of them stated to have reached the place of occurrence after the accident had occurred and had found respondent-driver and deceased lying in injured condition at the spot of accident. RW-1 Surinder Kumar had denied his involvement in accident, however, in cross-examination, he admitted that on 11.10.2001, he was admitted in Sachdeva Hospital and on the same day, deceased-Ram Kumar was also admitted in same hospital. RW-1 Surinder Kumar further admitted that deceased as well as he belonged to same village. Even, RW-3 Balwan Singh had stated that he had dropped respondent-driver as well as deceased to the hospital in the same car, though, he claimed that deceased was lying dead at the place of occurrence. RW-3 also stated that he had got information that respondent-driver had sustained injuries. In order to avoid evidence of RW-3, respondent-driver had examined RW-4 Sanjay Kumar who claimed that he had got respondent- driver admitted at the hospital as he was not well. He also admitted that the dead body of deceased was found near the site where respondent-driver was found. No FIR was ever filed by appellants-claimants. 5. If the evidence of appellants-claimants as well as respondent- driver is appreciated in totality, it is clearly made out that accident had taken place on account of use of offending vehicle. In absence of any police investigation concluding that respondent-driver is liable for causing the accident and in absence of any eye-witness to the accident, no conclusion as regards to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent-driver-cum- owner can be arrived at and learned Tribunal had therefore, rightly RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.09.03 12:28 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-3134-2003 -3- concluded that in the present case, only no fault liability arises as against respondents. 6. Faced with above conclusion, learned counsel for appellants- claimants submits that even if appellants-claimants are not entitled to compensation for fault liability, they are entitled to compensation under Section 164 of 1988 Act in view of changed circumstances, especially with amendment of Section 164 of 1988 Act w.e.f. 01.04.2022, once it is proved that deceased died on account of use of motor vehicle. 7. 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 amended therein. 8. Appeal is accordingly allowed. It is held that appellants- claimants are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation under Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The same be paid after adjusting amount already awarded and paid. The enhanced RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.09.03 12:28 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-3134-2003 -4- compensation shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from 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). Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) 02.09.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.09.03 12:28 I agree to specified portions of this document