FAO-417-2005(O&M) FAO-418-2005(O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.07.2026 (1) FAO-417-2005 SUNDERI ....APPELLANT VERSUS THE KAMEDA CO-OP CREDIT SO. SERVICES LTD. ...RESPONDENT (2) FAO-418-2005 BHAGWAN DASS & ANR. ....APPELLANTS VERSUS KAMEDA COOP CREDIT SO. SERVICES LTD. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Kunal Phogat, Advocate for the appellants. (in both cases) Respondents No.1 to 3 ex parte before the Tribunal. Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR 1. This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals which have arisen out of the same Award. 2. These appeals have been instituted by the claimants against the Award dated 08.10.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Cases No.174 and 175 of 14.03.2002, under VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.30 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-417-2005(O&M) FAO-418-2005(O&M) - 2- Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), vide which a sum of Rs.80,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant Sunderi on account of injuries suffered by her and a sum of Rs.52,000/- has been awarded to claimants Bhagwan Dass and Sunderi Bai on account of death of their child Rakesh Kumar, respectively, alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of petitions till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. However, respondent No.4/Insurance Company was directed to make payment to the claimants and was given right to recover the same from the owner. 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed in both claim petitions by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether claimant Sunderi has sustained injuries and Rakesh Kumar son of Bhagwan Dass had died in an accident caused with vehicle No.HR-28-6438 as alleged? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation if any and from whom the claimants are entitled to? 3. Whether the vehicle was being driven by a person holding no valid and effective driving licence? 4. Whether the insured had violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the risk of the passengers travelling in the insured vehicle i.e. the tractor was not covered by the terms and conditions of insurance policy? 6. Whether the trolley attached to the tractor in question was not covered by the terms and conditions of insurance policy? 7. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. 5. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.30 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-417-2005(O&M) FAO-418-2005(O&M) - 3- file, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation to claimant Sunderi on account of injuries suffered by her in an accident and a sum of Rs.52,000/- has been awarded to claimants Bhagwan Dass and Sunderi Bai on account of death of their child Rakesh Kumar, alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of petitions till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. However, respondent No.4/Insurance Company was directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimants but was given the right to recover the same from the owner. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeals and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeals have to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award. 8. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held that the accident in question had taken place on account of use of vehicle bearing No.HR-28-6438 being driven by respondent No.3-Aamin, owned by respondent No.1 which was insured with respondent No.4, resulting in injuries to claimant Sunderi and death of minor Rakesh Kumar. No appeal or cross- objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said findings and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 in both claim petitions is not required to be interfered with. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.30 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-417-2005(O&M) FAO-418-2005(O&M) - 4- 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned Award vide which compensation of Rs.80,000/- has been awarded to claimant Sunderi and a sum of Rs.52,000/- has been awarded to claimants Bhagwan Dass and Sunderi Bai is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel next contended that the claim petitions were filed under Section 163-A of the Act and now the provision contained in Section 163-A of the Act has been replaced by Section 164 of the Act vide Act No.32 of 2019 and under Section 164 of the Amended Act, claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of injuries and Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of their child. Learned counsel next contended that the benefit of the beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament should be given to the claimants and they should be awarded compensation accordingly. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 ACJ 631 Ram Murti and Others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the judgment in Ram Murti’s case (supra) is not applicable to the present case and sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation and there is no scope for further enhancement. 11. 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.30 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-417-2005(O&M) FAO-418-2005(O&M) - 5- 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." 12. In Ram Murti’s case (supra), the petition was filed under Section 166 of the 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 claimants in a death case. 13. In the present case, the accident took place on 02.01.2002, resulting in the death of Rakesh Kumar and injuries to Sunderi on account of use of vehicle bearing No.HR-28-6438. The claim petitions were filed under Section 163-A of the Act. Now, the amendment in Motor Vehicles Act has come 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.30 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-417-2005(O&M) FAO-418-2005(O&M) - 6- 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 entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of a person and Rs.2,50,000/- on account of injuries suffered by a victim. Thus, in view of law laid down in Ram Murti’s case (supra), it is held that the claimant Sunderi is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of injuries suffered by her and both claimants Bhagwan Dass etc. are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of their son Rakesh Kumar. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeals are partly allowed with costs. 15. The appellant/claimant in FAO-417-2005 is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rs.2,50,000/- - Rs.80,000/-) along with intesrest @ 9% per annum while the appellants/claimants in FAO-418-2005 are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- - Rs.52,000/-), along with interest @ 9% per annum. They shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation w.e.f. 01.09.2019 when Section 164 of the Act came into force till realization. The compensation shall be payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. However, the Insurance Company shall pay the amount to the claimants but shall have a right to recover the same from the insured/owner along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization without filing a separate suit. 16. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the Award to VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.30 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-417-2005(O&M) FAO-418-2005(O&M) - 7- 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 Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 17. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of connected case(s). 28.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable. : Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.30 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document