IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** I. FAO-4459-2014 (O&M) United India Insurance Company Limited . . . . Appellant Vs. Daljit Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** II. FAO-1967-2015 (O&M) Daljeet Singh and another . . . . Appellants Vs. Magandeep Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 02.07.2026 Pronounced on: 06.07.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Deepak K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4 in FAO-4459-2014 and for respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO-1967-2015 **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Both these appeals arise out of the common award dated 21.03.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") was partly allowed and compensation of ₹2,42,000/- along with interest was VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.07 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4459-2014 2026:PHHC:091125 FAO-1967-2015 awarded in favour of the claimants, payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 2. FAO No.1967 of 2015 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas FAO No.4459 of 2014 has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning its liability on the ground that the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act were not attracted to the facts of the present case. 3. FAO No.1967 of 2015 is accompanied by CM No.6168-CII of 2015 seeking condonation of delay of 223 days in filing the appeal. 4. Despite service, no reply has been filed opposing the application. The reasons disclosed in the application, duly supported by an affidavit of appellant Daljit Singh, constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 223 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 5. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 25.03.2013, Jaspreet Singh, aged about 17 years, was proceeding from his village towards Government High School, SAS Nagar, Mohali on his Bullet motorcycle bearing registration No.CH-37-T-649(T). At about 10.00 A.M., when he reached near Gurdwara Sahib, village Polo Majra, a dog suddenly came in front of the motorcycle. In an attempt to avoid the animal, the motorcycle lost control, crossed towards the opposite carriageway and collided with an Indica car bearing registration No.CH-01-AE-8231 coming from the opposite direction. Jaspreet Singh sustained multiple injuries and, despite being taken to Civil Hospital, Khamano, succumbed thereto. DDR No.17 dated 25.03.2013 was accordingly recorded at Police Station Khamano. 6. Being the parents of the deceased, the claimants instituted the petition under Section 163-A of the Act seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the Indica car on the plea that the accident had arisen out of the use of the said vehicle. The claim was resisted by the respondents. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.07 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4459-2014 2026:PHHC:091125 FAO-1967-2015 7. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that the accident had arisen out of the use of the Indica car and consequently awarded compensation under the structured formula prescribed under Section 163-A. FAO No.4459 of 2014 (Insurance Company) 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the deceased himself lost control over his motorcycle after hitting a dog and came onto the wrong side of the road, where he collided with the Indica car. According to learned counsel, there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the driver of the Indica car and, therefore, the death cannot be said to have arisen out of the use of the said vehicle so as to attract Section 163-A of the Act. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alka Shukla v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2019) 6 SCC 64. 9. This Court finds no merit in the aforesaid submission. The reliance upon Alka Shukla (supra) is wholly misplaced. That decision arose out of a dispute relating to an Accident Benefit Insurance Policy issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Supreme Court was examining the contractual requirement that the bodily injury should have resulted solely and directly from an accident caused by outward, violent and visible means. The observations made therein were rendered in the context of interpretation of an insurance contract and not while construing the statutory liability created under the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. The present case stands on an entirely different footing. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act creates a distinct and self-contained code providing for payment of compensation on the basis of a structured formula. The legislative object behind introducing the provision was to provide expeditious relief to victims of motor accidents without compelling them to establish negligence. 11. The expression employed in Section 163-A is "death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle." The VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.07 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4459-2014 2026:PHHC:091125 FAO-1967-2015 legislature has consciously not used the expression "caused by the negligence of the driver." Consequently, once it is established that the accident arose out of the use of the motor vehicle concerned, the question of negligence recedes into insignificance. 12. In the present case, it is undisputed that the deceased ultimately collided with the Indica car and sustained fatal injuries in the said collision. The death, therefore, clearly arose out of the use of both the vehicles involved in the accident, including the insured Indica car. The fact that the deceased may have crossed onto the opposite side of the road or that the collision was preceded by the motorcycle striking a dog would not take the case outside the ambit of Section 163-A. 13. The legal position now stands authoritatively settled by the Three Judges Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398, wherein it has been categorically held that in proceedings under Section 163-A, it is not open to the insurer or the owner to raise the defence of negligence of the victim. The liability under Section 163-A is founded upon the statutory scheme itself and not upon proof of fault. 14. Thus, the submission sought to be raised by the Insurance Company virtually invites this Court to enquire into the question of negligence, an exercise expressly prohibited by the law declared by the Supreme Court. 15. Once the accident is shown to have arisen out of the use of the insured vehicle, compensation under Section 163-A cannot be denied merely because the deceased may himself have contributed to the occurrence. 16. Accordingly, no illegality can be found in the finding recorded by the Tribunal, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. FAO No.4459 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. FAO No.1967 of 2015 (Claimants) VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.07 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4459-2014 2026:PHHC:091125 FAO-1967-2015 17. Coming to the appeal filed by the claimants, learned counsel submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, Parliament has substituted Section 163-A by introducing Section 164 through the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. Under the amended provision, compensation in a case of death arising out of the use of a motor vehicle has been statutorily enhanced to ₹5,00,000/-. 18. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Sri Dhar Chatterjee v. Rupesh Khatri and others, 2025 NCPHHC 42842, and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suman Devi and others (Law Finder Doc ID #2324461), wherein the benefit of Section 164 has been extended even in pending appeals having regard to the beneficial nature of the legislation. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has not been able to distinguish the aforesaid judgments nor has any contrary precedent been brought to the notice of this Court. 20. The Motor Vehicles Act is a piece of beneficial social welfare legislation enacted with the primary object of providing just and fair compensation to victims of motor accidents and their dependents. The Courts have consistently adopted a liberal interpretation while construing its provisions so as to advance the legislative object rather than defeat it. 21. Since the present appeal was pending on the date when the amended provision came into force and Coordinate Benches of this Court have already extended the benefit of Section 164 to similarly situated claimants, this Court sees no reason to adopt a different view. 22. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be modified and enhanced to the statutory amount of ₹5,00,000/-. 23. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of ₹2,42,000/-, the claimants shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of ₹2,58,000/-, together VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.07 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4459-2014 2026:PHHC:091125 FAO-1967-2015 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. 24. Consequently, FAO No.4459 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed; whereas FAO No.1967 of 2015 filed by the claimants is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellants- claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-, payable jointly and severally by the driver, owner and insurer of the offending Indica car. 25. The enhanced amount of ₹2,58,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. 26. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the file of the connected case. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 06.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 07.07.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.07 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document