IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 206 JASWANTI STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: Present: TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA terms of the effect from 09.08.2019. 2. compensation of vide order dated 31.05.2019 under P-7, on account of death of for enhanced compensation is based upon Act subsequent to the accident and death is applicable prospectively, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the enhanced compensation. This has been so held IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA None for the petitioner. Mr. Aakash Singla, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate (through video conferencing) for respondent no.5. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed seeking enhanced the amendment carried out in the Motor Vehicles effect from 09.08.2019. It is apparent on record that the petitioner compensation of ₹25,000 by the Claims Settlement Commissioner, Rohtak, vide order dated 31.05.2019 under the Solatium Scheme, 1989, Annexure 7, on account of death of his son-Manjit Singh for enhanced compensation is based upon the Act subsequent to the accident and death in question is applicable prospectively, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the enhanced compensation. This has been so held IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-32-2022 Date of decision: July 23, 2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondents TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Advocate General, Haryana. (through video conferencing) seeking enhanced compensation in in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with It is apparent on record that the petitioner was sanctioned 25,000 by the Claims Settlement Commissioner, Rohtak, Solatium Scheme, 1989, Annexure Manjit Singh on 27.08.2004. The claim the amendment carried out in the in question. Since the amendment is applicable prospectively, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the enhanced compensation. This has been so held vide order dated 18.04.2022, , 2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondents compensation in , 1988, with was sanctioned 25,000 by the Claims Settlement Commissioner, Rohtak, Solatium Scheme, 1989, Annexure . The claim rried out in the . Since the amendment is applicable prospectively, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the vide order dated 18.04.2022, JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-32-2022 -2- passed by this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Jind-cum-Claims Settlement Commissioner and another, 2023 ACJ 660, also. 3. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. July 23, 2026 (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) Jaspreet Kaur JUDGE  Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh