281 FAO-2741-2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 MANJIT KAUR & ORS. ....APPELLANTS VERSUS HARMEET SINGH & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Ms. Dheerja, Advocate/Amicus Curiae for the appellants. Notice to respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with. Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate and Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session. 2. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 29.01.2005 for enhancement of the compensation passed in MACT Case No.18 of 13.06.2003 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of the death of Balraj Singh in a motor vehicular accident. 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether death of Balraj Singh took place on 14.5.2003 at about 7:00 P.M. in the area of village Gagrola in road accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No.PB-11-U-8945 by respondent No.1, if so its effect? OPP VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document deceased, if so its effect? OPP 3. If issues No.1 and 2 proved to what amount of compensation claimants entitled and from whom? OPP 4. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective DL as alleged? OPR-3 5. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. The deceased was travelling on his motorcycle and one Maruti car bearing No.PB-11-U-8945 being driven by respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2 was going ahead of his motorcycle. All of a sudden, a child came on a bicycle in front of the said Maruti car as a result of which respondent No.1 applied sudden brakes to save the child and motorcycle being driven by the deceased who was coming behind the car struck against the Maruti car resulting in his death. Learned counsel next contended that Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, Tribunal assessed his monthly income to be Rs.2,000/- per month. Further, taking age of the deceased to be 39 years, multiplier of 16 was applied and total compensation of VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of the compensation assessed by it and awarded only a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- besides Rs.3,000/- under conventional heads on the ground that the claimants had not impleaded the owner and insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Learned counsel contended that the other vehicle was the motorcycle being driven by the deceased and the owner or insurer of the motorcycle was not required to be impleaded and since accident had taken place on account of use of Maruti car owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, the entire compensation could have been recovered from them and he prayed that finding on issues No.2 and 3 be modified and claimants be awarded adequate amount of compensation including compensation under conventional heads. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that initially the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A 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 on whom the claimants were dependent. 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/- 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 Insurance Company has argued that judgment in Ram Murti’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case and the award passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned and justified and same VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document as now the same is not retrospective. 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 amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in the case of grievous hurt of 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 Tribunal has come to the conclusion that accident in question had taken place between the motorcycle being driven by the deceased and Maruti car bearing No.PB-11-U-8945 being driven by respondent VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document is established that death of Balraj Singh took place on account of use of Maruti car bearing No.PB-11-U-8945 and in these circumstances, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not required to be impleaded and compensation could be claimed from the owner and insurer of the Maruti car in which the motorcycle of the deceased had struck. 12. Learned Tribunal has also rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Even as per version of claimant, her husband was working as a driver in PRTC and was getting Rs.3,200/- per month as salary and thereafter, 1/3rd of amount has been deducted as deceased had left behind three dependents and multiplier of 16 was applied. However, as per law laid down in 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied and after applying the same, the compensation payable comes out to Rs.3,60,000/- and after adding a sum of Rs.3,000/- under conventional heads, Tribunal ought to have been awarded a sum of Rs.3,63,000/- as compensation to the claimants instead of Rs.1,92,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. 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 are held entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, in VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document held entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of Balraj Singh. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal ought to have been awarded a sum of Rs.3,63,000/- as compensation and accordingly, it is ordered that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.3,63,000/- - Rs.1,95,000/-) from the date of filing of claim petition till realization and qua remaining amount of enhanced compensation i.e. Rs.1,37,000/- which has been awarded as per Ram Murti’s case (supra), claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.09.2019 (when Section 164 of the Act came into force), till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally. 15. 15. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent/Insurance Company 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. 16. The appeal in hand was instituted by Sh. R.K. Shukla, Advocate who had not appeared and Ms. Dheerja, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to prosecute the appeal and accordingly, copy of the judgment be sent to successor Court of Shri G.K. Dhir, MACT, Patiala as well as Secretary-cum-CJM, VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document claimants as well as Sh. Harish Ahuja, Advocate for claimants who had instituted the claim petition, so that they can seek enhanced amount of compensation. 17. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable. : Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document