IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 290 FAO-3217-2004 (O&M) Date of decision:15.07.2026 JAGDISH PARSHAD (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. & ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS RAJU BANSAL AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate and Ms. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants challenging award dated 06.12.2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby their claim petition was dismissed. Appellant-claimants are husband and son of Smt. Bimla Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who had preferred claim petition on account of untimely death of deceased in motor vehicular accident dated 07.07.1998. 2. Appellants-claimants had claimed that on 07.07.1998 deceased was traveling along with her son, Raju Bansal, in car bearing registration number PB-64/0100 from Sunam to Delhi at normal speed on the correct side of the road and said car was hit by canter bearing registration number HR-46/9303 (hereinafter referred to as ‘canter’) being driven by Phool SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3217-2004 (O&M) -2- Kumar. As a result of accident, driver of the car Amarjeet Singh and Bimla Devi died at the spot and Raju Bansal had suffered multiple injuries. 3. In order to prove use of motor vehicle in accident dated 07.07.1998, appellant-claimant had appeared as AW-1 and stated about the accident as was stated by him in the claim petition. However, learned Tribunal after appreciating evidence led by parties, had rejected the claim of appellants-claimants with following findings:- “i. Claimants are not certain as to what was the registration number of the offending vehicle i.e. canter. In para No.24 of the claim petition, claimants have first written registration of the canter as HR-46/9303. The last word has been written with a pen on the typed word ‘O’. ii. Claimant Jagdish Parshad has entered the witness-box as AW-1 and has tendered his sworn affidavit into evidence, by way of examination-in-chief. In para No.2 of the affidavit, number of the canter has been written as HR-46/9300. iii. According to the claimants Phool Kumar was driving this canter but strangely enough this Phool Kumar or owner of the canter has not been made a party and one fails to understand as to from where claimants came to know that Phool Kumar was the driver of the offending vehicle. In the certified copy of the FIR ExA-1 registration number canter has been mentioned as HR- 46/9303. One fails to understand as to which is the actual registration number of the canter. iv. In the claim petition it has been projected by the claimants that deceased Bimla Devi was also mother of respondent No.1 Raju Bansal but Raju Bansal, while lodging the complaint with the police has very clearly SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3217-2004 (O&M) -3- and repeatedly described deceased Bimla Devi as his wife. It is not the case of the claimants that FIR has been recorded wrongly by the police. IN my considered opinion, it is certainly and extremely doubtful circumstances which leads one to infer that the accident, as alleged by Raju Bansal before the police, has not taken place. Further more it has not been made clear that if the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle why the claim petition has not been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. v. In the claim petition the occupation of the deceased has been given as business and she has been reflected as an income tax payee. But in the personal accident insurance Jagdish Parsahd Bansal i.e. claimant No.1 has described the occupation of the deceased Bimla Devi as “House Wife”. This fact becomes clear from the document Ex.R-1 placed on the claim file and this indicates that Jagdish Parshad Bansal has already claimed compensation for the death of Bimla Devi by showing her occupation “House Wife”. Certainly Jagdish Parshad has not come the Court with clean hands as on the one hand he is projecting his wife Bimla Devi to be engaged in business and an income tax payee, whereas on the other hand when he comes to claim compensation from the insurance Company he is projecting her as “House Wife”. The perusal of the document Ex.R-1 is very material for looking into the conduct of the claimant.” 4. In the present case, in fact, appellants-claimants have neither chosen to implead the driver and owner of the canter with which accident had taken place nor the insurance company of the canter. Appellants- SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3217-2004 (O&M) -4- claimants have preferred the claim and appeal to seek compensation and enhancement in compensation only from insurance company of the car in which deceased was traveling. 5. Learned Tribunal has placed great emphasis on the fact that wrong registration number of the canter was mentioned by the appellants- claimants. The manner of accident was duly mentioned in FIR (Ex.A-1). In written statement, respondent No.2-Insurance Company had admitted date of accident, place of accident and the fact that deceased had died on account of injuries suffered in the accident, as well as the involvement of canter in the accident. Once respondent No.2-Insurance Company has admitted that accident had taken place between the car in which deceased was traveling and canter, no further proof was required for the purpose of present petition which was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1988 Act’). The liability of Insurance Company, driver and owner is based upon no-fault liability and the only requirement for a petition to succeed under Section 163-A of 1988 Act is to prove death or injury in an accident on account of use of motor vehicle(s) which stands admitted by respondent No.2. Therefore, error in the statement of AW1- Jagdish Prashad as regards to registration number of canter, which was not even made a party in the claim petition, is of no consequence and learned Tribunal has wrongly placed unnecessary reliance upon such mistake on the part of AW1-Jagdish Prashad. 6. Present is not a case where appellants-claimants are seeking compensation under Section 166 of 1988 Act, therefore, joining of another vehicle is not required. Appellants-claimants could have sought SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3217-2004 (O&M) -5- compensation from insurance company of either of the vehicles which were involved in the accident or by impleading both of them. Appellants- claimants have choice to seek compensation from Insurance Company of car. Therefore, on this ground claim petition cannot be dismissed. Accordingly, finding of learned tribunal on issue No.1 is set aside. It is held that deceased had died in a motor vehicle accident dated 07.07.1998 on account of use of motor vehicles i.e. car and canter. 7. It is also not in doubt that w.e.f. 01.04.2022 Section 163-A of 1988 Act has been omitted and replaced by Section 164 of 1988 Act, which mandates payment of lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as no-fault liability where death or injury was on account of use of motor vehicle. Question therefore is whether provisions of newly enacted Section 164 would be applicable to cases where accident had taken prior to 01.04.2022 and petition under Section 163-A was filed and allowed prior to 01.04.2022. 8. 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 with this very issue and has concluded that since 1988 Act is a 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 SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3217-2004 (O&M) -6- view of authoritative pronouncement by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clearly made out that Section 164 of 1988 Act being a procedural amendment would be retrospective in nature and appellants-claimants would be entitled to receive compensation mandated therein. 9. Appeal is accordingly allowed. It is held that appellants- claimants are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The awarded 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). Liability to pay compensation shall be that of respondents jointly and severally. 10. Present appeal is allowed in above terms. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 15.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document