IOIN-1-FAO FAO-5763 IN THE HIG 217 United India Urmila Devi CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. 2. the Predeces letter Nos. 1 issued to Company re No. 1 to 3 case has bee appeal has b service upon counsel appe is ordered to FAO-5763-2013 in 63-2013 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus a Devi and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta & Ms for the appellant-Insurance Com None for respondents No. 4 and I GUPTA, J. Office note perused. The present appeal is of the ye edecessor Bench vide order dated 25 Nos. 1330 and 1610 dated 07.03.2026 Mr. RK Sharma, Advocate rep requesting him to supply fresh/co to 3/claimants have been received b s been returned to the Insurance Co l has been listed today under the IOIN e upon respondents No. 1 to 3. At el appearing for the appellant-Insuranc red to be taken up on Board for final h D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IOIN-1-FAO-5763-2013 in FAO-5763-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 .…Appellant ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA & Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Advocates e Company. and 5. the year 2013 and was admitted by ted 25.03.2014. As per office note, 3.2026 and 18.03.2026, respectively representing appellant-Insurance resh/correct address of respondents ived back with the report that ‘the e Company’. As such, the present IOIN Category for completion of At the oral request of learned surance Company, the main appeal final hearing today itself. d by vely ance ents he sent n of rned peal RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO FAO-5763 3. Company, la learned Mot as ‘the Tri respondents had been p compensatio Section 140 account of d took place registration driven by 5-Mahender Tribunal aw annum from the responde severally. Th Luxman Das 4. alia, submit No. 1 to 3 un the provisio income is no case, it was FAO-5763-2013 in 63-2013 (O&M) -2- The present appeal has been fil any, laying challenge to the Award da d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, J e Tribunal’) whereby the claim p dents No. 1 to 3, bearing MAC Petitio een partly allowed; and the claim nsation of ₹50,000/- on the principle 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 nt of death of Luxman Dass in the a place due to rash and negligent ation No. HR-14-6465 (hereinafter ‘t by respondent No. 4-Dinesh; o ender Singh; and insured by appell al awarded compensation as above a from the date of filing the claim peti spondents were held liable to pay t The 03 claimants are the widow a an Dass. Learned counsel for the appella ubmits that the claim petition was fi under Section 163-A of the Act. I ovisions of the said Act is admissib e is not more than ₹40,000/- per ann it was the own pleaded case of the een filed by the appellant/Insurance ard dated 09.05.2013 passed by the nal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to laim petition filed by claimants/ Petition No. RBT 134 of 2010/2013 claimants were held entitled to inciple of ‘no fault liability’ under Act, 1988 (for short-‘the Act’), on the accident dated 16.09.2001that igent driving of Tractor bearing after ‘the offending vehicle’) being esh; owned by respondent No. appellant-Insurance Company. Ld. bove along with interest @ 8% per m petition till actual realization. All pay the compensation jointly and idow and 2 minor sons of deceased- appellant/Insurance Company, inter was filed by claimants/respondents Act. It is submitted that relief under missible to persons whose annual er annum. However, in the present f the claimants before the learned ance the d to nts/ 013 to nder , on that ring eing No. per All and ter ents nder nual sent rned RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO FAO-5763 Tribunal tha income was not entitled Award deser 5. appreciate th 163-A of the grant urgent more than cases would into account laid down in the claim pe i.e. under Se given the op under both. 163-A of the Thus, Tribun claimants. It and the claim 6. heard ld. cou submissions FAO-5763-2013 in 63-2013 (O&M) -3- al that deceased was earning ₹4369 e was ₹52,428/-. It is, contended that titled to relief under Section 163-A o deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that the iate that the claimants had filed the of the Act. Section 163-A was broug urgent relief to that section of people than ₹40,000/- having regard to the would be paid on the basis of the st ccount the age of the victim and his wn in the Second Schedule of the Act im petition cannot be filed under both der Section 140 of the Act and Sectio the option to file claim petition in eit both. Once, the claimants have filed of the Act, they cannot claim relief u Tribunal has committed grave error nts. It is accordingly prayed that the i e claim petition filed by the claimants No other argument is raised on counsel and perused the case file i ssions made by ld. counsel for the appe 4369/- per month i.e. his annual d that therefore, the claimants were A of the Act and the impugned at the learned Tribunal has failed to d the claim petition under Section brought on the Statute of the Act to people whose annual income is not the fact that compensation in such the structured formula after taking d his income and all other facts as he Act. According to Section 163-B, er both the provisions of the Statute Section 163-A as a person has been in either of the said Sections and not filed claim petition under Section relief under Section 140 of the Act. error in awarding ₹50,000/- to the at the impugned Award be set aside mants be dismissed in toto. ed on behalf of the appellant. I have e file in detail. I find no merit in the e appellant-Insurance Company. nual ere ned d to tion to not such king ts as B, tute een not Act. the side ave the RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO FAO-5763 7. Tribunal in 8. consideration Insurance C claimants un not maintain whose incom above, said dismissed th under Sectio exercised di FAO-5763-2013 in 63-2013 (O&M) -4- The present case has a checker al in para 7 of the impugned Award, w “xxx 7. It is pertinent to men petitioners filed the main petit Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 1 both the parties was conclud application for seeking permiss under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, which was allowed vide o order dated 23-11-2004 was c High Court by way of filing th 2005 by respondent No. 3, whi prosecution vide order dated 07-2008, the petitioners again Section 151 CPC to withdraw Section 163-A of M.V. Act and previous claim petition under said application was opposed dismissed vide order dated 12 that the parties cannot be p reprobate, blow hot and cold taking inconsistent pleas. Ther SLP No. 11311 of 2009 befo which was also dismissed on 26 Notwithstanding the above fact eration to the contention of learned nce Company to the effect that the under Section 163-A of the Act b aintainable as, the same is only for a income is ₹40,000/- per annum or le , said fact that the learned Tribunal sed the claim petition of claimant/r Section 163-A of the Act. Howeve discretionary relief under Sectio heckered history as recorded by the ard, which is reproduced as under:- xxx xxx mention here that initially the petition under Section 166 of the on 17-03-2001. After evidence of cluded the petitioners moved an mission to amend the petition filed .V. Act into Section 163-A of the ide order dated 23-11-2004. The as challenged before the Hon’ble g the Civil Revision No. 1016 of which was dismissed for want of ed 20-12-2007. Thereafter, on 29- gain moved the application under raw the amended petition under and sought permission to read the der Section 166 of M.V. Act. The sed by the respondents and was 12-08-2008 mainly on the ground be permitted to approbate and cold and play loose and fast by Thereafter, petitioners again filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court, 26-09-2012.” e facts, I have given my thoughtful learned counsel for the appellant- at the claim petition filed by the Act being a special provision was for a particular class of person(s) m or less. It is keeping in view the ibunal vide impugned Award had mant/respondents No. 1 to 3 filed owever, the learned Tribunal had Section 140 of the Act and had the he he of an ed he he le of of er er he he as nd nd by ed rt, tful the was the had filed had had RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO FAO-5763 granted an a fault liability 9. Insurance Co the fact tha therefore, a consideration noted facts, Award. The 10. stand dispose 29.04.2026 rishu FAO-5763-2013 in 63-2013 (O&M) -5- d an amount of ₹50,000/-to the claim iability’. The contentions of learned nce Company are liable to be rejected ct that the Motor Vehicles Act is a ore, an empathetic view has to b eration the entire factual matrix, and facts, I find no ground is made out for The appeal is dismissed. IOIN as well as pending app disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable e claimants on the principle of ‘no arned counsel for the appellant- ejected as, it cannot be lost sight of ct is a beneficial legislation; and, to be taken. Thus, taking into , and in the conspectus of the afore- for interference in the impugned g application(s), if any, shall also ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ‘no t of and, into ned also RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.