FAO. 1059-200 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Charanjit Sharma Subhash and other CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. for *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 04.04.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal') FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2003 pillion rider was returning to Karnal from Haridwar on mo registration No. village Kurali, a cow suddenly appeared on the road. Subhash order to save the cow. In th on the road. The appellant of proximal phalanx. He was shifted to City Orthopaedic Hospital and X 2006 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1059-2006 Date of Decision: Charanjit Sharma Vs. and others HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3– Insurance Company. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated passed in the claim petition filed under Section 1988 whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short, 'the Tribunal') dismissed the claim petition of the appellant FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE The brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2003 was returning to Karnal from Haridwar on mo HR-05-M-4594, being driven by Subhash. When they reached near , a cow suddenly appeared on the road. Subhash order to save the cow. In that process, the motorcycle slipped and both fell down on the road. The appellant sustained multiple injuries i imal phalanx. He was shifted to City Orthopaedic Hospital and X -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 6 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 28, 2025 ......Appellant ......Respondent(s) SUDEEPTI SHARMA , Advocate for the appellant. Insurance Company. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal the claim petition of the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2003, the appellant being was returning to Karnal from Haridwar on motorcycle bearing by Subhash. When they reached near , a cow suddenly appeared on the road. Subhash applied the brakes process, the motorcycle slipped and both fell down multiple injuries including compound fracture imal phalanx. He was shifted to City Orthopaedic Hospital and X- The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated of the Motor Karnal being torcycle bearing by Subhash. When they reached near applied the brakes in process, the motorcycle slipped and both fell down ncluding compound fracture -ray Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 1059-200 centre, Karnal, where he remained admitted from 03.08.2003 to 16.08.2003 was operated upon 3. Upon notice of written reply denying the factum of accident/compensation. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR 4594 petitioner received injuries in the said accident 2. Whether the 3. present petition? OPR 4. Nos. 5 valid effect? OPR 6 claim and from whom 7 5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal claimant/appellant. Hence of compensation. SUBMISSIONS OF 6. The learned counsel for the appellant petition was dismissed only on the ground that 2006 (O&M) centre, Karnal, where he remained admitted from 03.08.2003 to 16.08.2003 was operated upon their and POP was applied on his leg. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed written reply denying the factum of accident/compensation. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR 4594 by its driver-respondent No. 1 and whether Charanji petitioner received injuries in the said accident 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? 3. Whether the petitioner m has got no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR 4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the driver of the offending valid and effective driving licence effect? OPR 6. To what amount of compensation claim and from whom? OPP 7.Relief.” After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant. Hence, the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant of compensation. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES The learned counsel for the appellant petition was dismissed only on the ground that -2- centre, Karnal, where he remained admitted from 03.08.2003 to 16.08.2003. and POP was applied on his leg. the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed written reply denying the factum of accident/compensation. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05- respondent No. 1 and whether Charanjit Sharma petitioner received injuries in the said accident? OPP petition is not maintainable? OPP has got no locus standi to file the Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent offending vehicle was not holding icence at the time of accident, if so, To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on dismissed the claim petition filed by the the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that the injuries mentioned in the He the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following the accident in question took place due to rash and -M- Sharma- has got no locus standi to file the Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent vehicle was not holding a if so, its the petitioner is entitled to After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on dismissed the claim petition filed by the the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant claimant contends that the claim the injuries mentioned in the Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 1059-200 disability certificate does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to result in permanent/partial di law in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant does not suffer permanent injury due to the alleged accident, therefore, the provision 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will not be applicable in the present case. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be granted as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Vehicles Act, 1988 7. He further submitted that the present case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Electricity Board Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakh. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent however, vehemently argues that the claim therefore, prays for dismissal of the 2006 (O&M) disability certificate does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to result in permanent/partial disablement. He further submits that the Tribunal has law in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant does not suffer permanent injury due to the alleged accident, therefore, the provision A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will not be applicable in the present case. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now substituted by Section 164 of Motor ehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be granted as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the , 1988. He further submitted that the present case is covered by the judgment endered by this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006 Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others.” wherein the claim under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2022) by relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] wherein it was held that Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakh. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent however, vehemently argues that the claim petition has rightly been dismissed. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present appeal. -3- disability certificate does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to result in He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant does not suffer permanent injury due to the alleged accident, therefore, the provisions of Section A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will not be applicable in the present case. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed. He further submits that Section substituted by Section 164 of Motor ehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be granted as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Motor He further submitted that the present case is covered by the judgment FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as “Akaljit Kaur and .” wherein the claim under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 of Motor Vehicles 01.04.2022) by relying upon the judgment of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State herein it was held that Section 164 of the (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2022) provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in the Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, petition has rightly been dismissed. He, appeal. disability certificate does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to result in erred in law in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant does not suffer of Section A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will not be applicable in the present case. Section substituted by Section 164 of Motor ehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be Motor He further submitted that the present case is covered by the judgment Akaljit Kaur and .” wherein the claim under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles 01.04.2022) by relying upon the judgment of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State herein it was held that Section 164 of the provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in the Insurance Company, petition has rightly been dismissed. He, Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 1059-200 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. 10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce the relev the impugned award, which reads as under: “ISSUE NO 10. It has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for respondents that petition under Section 163 Act is not maintainable as petitioner has not suffered disability. 11. Section 163 Special p formula basis any other law for the time being force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation shall have the same meaning a Compensation Act, 1923(8 of 1923). 12. From the bare rea Act, it is apparent that 2006 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce the relev the impugned award, which reads as under:- ISSUE NO 2:- It has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for respondents that petition under Section 163 is not maintainable as petitioner has not suffered isability. 11. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as under "163 provisions as to payment of compensa formula basis-(1) Notwithstanding anythi any other law for the time being in force of instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the second schedule, to the legal he or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation-For the purpose of this subsection, ve the same meaning and extent Compensation Act, 1923(8 of 1923). 12. From the bare reading of Section 163- Act, it is apparent that- -4- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of It has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for respondents that petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle is not maintainable as petitioner has not suffered permanent A of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as under "163-A. rovisions as to payment of compensation on structured (1) Notwithstanding anything contained this Act or in orce of instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, the second schedule, to the legal heir subsection, permanent disability nd extent as in Workmen's -A of the Motor Vehicles I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of ant portion of Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 1059-200 (a) Legal representatives of a person are entitled to compensation in case of his or her death in the he said accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. (b) The injured is entitl disablement due to accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently that from the statement of Dr. Vinod Kumar PW3 read with disability certificate Ex.P34, it become permanently disa injuries suffered by him in the abovesaid accident. Dr. Vinod Kumar PW3 has stated that on 22.9.2004, a board consisting of himself and Dr.Gaje Sin petitioner regarding his permanent disability and the said board found him permanently disabled to the extent of 5% on account of deformation and stiffness of right little finger alongwith malunited fracture of 5 has stated that the disability qua finger is 3% and qua foot is 2%. 14. To my mind, arguments advanced by the learned counsel fo petitioner has no force in view of explanation of Section 16 Motor Veh Explanation. For the purpose of this Sub section disability' shall have the same meaning and extent Compensation Act, 1923. 2006 (O&M) (a) Legal representatives of a person are entitled to compensation in case of his or her death in the he said accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. (b) The injured is entitled to compensation in case of permanent disablement due to accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently that from the statement of Dr. Vinod Kumar PW3 read with disability certificate Ex.P34, it has been duly proved that the petitioner has become permanently disabled to the extent of 5% because of the suffered by him in the abovesaid accident. Dr. Vinod Kumar PW3 has stated that on 22.9.2004, a board consisting of himself and Dr.Gaje Singh and Dr. (Mrs) Vinod Bala Narang examined petitioner regarding his permanent disability and the said board found him permanently disabled to the extent of 5% on account of deformation and stiffness of right little finger alongwith malunited fracture of 5th meta tarsal of right foot. In his cross has stated that the disability qua finger is 3% and qua foot is 2%. 14. To my mind, arguments advanced by the learned counsel fo petitioner has no force in view of explanation of Section 16 Motor Vehicles Act which reads as under: Explanation. For the purpose of this Sub section disability' shall have the same meaning and extent Compensation Act, 1923. -5- (a) Legal representatives of a person are entitled to compensation in case of his or her death in the he said accident arising out of the use ed to compensation in case of permanent disablement due to accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently that from the statement of Dr. Vinod Kumar PW3 read with disability has been duly proved that the petitioner has led to the extent of 5% because of the suffered by him in the abovesaid accident. Dr. Vinod Kumar PW3 has stated that on 22.9.2004, a board consisting of himself and gh and Dr. (Mrs) Vinod Bala Narang examined petitioner regarding his permanent disability and the said board found him permanently disabled to the extent of 5% on account of deformation and stiffness of right little finger alongwith malunited th meta tarsal of right foot. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the disability qua finger is 3% and qua foot is 2%. 14. To my mind, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force in view of explanation of Section 163-A of the cles Act which reads as under:- Explanation. For the purpose of this Sub section 'permanent disability' shall have the same meaning and extent as the Workmen's Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 1059-200 From the bare reading of this explanation, it is permanent disability shall have the same meaning and extent Workmen's Compensation Act, Part Workmen's Compensation Act contains li result in permanent/partial disablement. Injuries me disability certificate Ex. P34 d injuries deemed to result in permanent/partial disablement mentioned in part Compensation Act. So, from the evidence on record, it is not pr that the petitioner has become permanently disabled, in terms of injuries mentioned in Workmen's Compensation Act. So, there is no permanent disability. Therefore, the petition under Section 163 the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable. ISSUES N 15. In view of findings on issue no. 2, no findings are required on issues no. 3,4,5 & 6. 11. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground in the disability certificate does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to result in permanent/partial disablement this Court in FAO No. 5083 decided on 03.10.2024 wherein it has been observed as under: “12. Further the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that 2006 (O&M) From the bare reading of this explanation, it is permanent disability shall have the same meaning and extent Workmen's Compensation Act, Part-Il of Schedule n's Compensation Act contains li result in permanent/partial disablement. Injuries me disability certificate Ex. P34 does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to result in permanent/partial disablement mentioned in part-II Schedule-I attached with Workmen's Compensation Act. So, from the evidence on record, it is not pr that the petitioner has become permanently disabled, in terms of injuries mentioned in Workmen's Compensation Act. So, there is no permanent disability. Therefore, the petition under Section 163 the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable. ISSUES NO.3,4,5 & 6 15. In view of findings on issue no. 2, no findings are required on issues no. 3,4,5 & 6.” A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground in the disability certificate does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to result in permanent/partial disablement. It is a settled proposition of law, as held by FAO No. 5083-2006 titled as Ashraf vs. Rajesh Kumar and anr decided on 03.10.2024 wherein it has been observed as under: Further the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant does not suffer any -6- From the bare reading of this explanation, it is apparent that permanent disability shall have the same meaning and extent in the Il of Schedule-I attached with n's Compensation Act contains list of injuries deemed to result in permanent/partial disablement. Injuries mentioned in es not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to result in permanent/partial disablement I attached with Workmen's Compensation Act. So, from the evidence on record, it is not proved that the petitioner has become permanently disabled, in terms of injuries mentioned in Workmen's Compensation Act. So, there is no permanent disability. Therefore, the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable. 15. In view of findings on issue no. 2, no findings are required on A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the injuries mentioned in the disability certificate does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to It is a settled proposition of law, as held by 2006 titled as Ashraf vs. Rajesh Kumar and anr decided on 03.10.2024 wherein it has been observed as under:- Further the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim the appellant does not suffer any A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has mentioned in the disability certificate does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to It is a settled proposition of law, as held by 2006 titled as Ashraf vs. Rajesh Kumar and anr, Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 1059-200 permanent disability due to the alleged accident. However, this Court is not satisfied with the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal as substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and in the amended Section there is no requirement regarding permanent disability for claiming compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the compensation should have to be enhanced as per substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act. the appell beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the sum of Rs.5 lakh and in case of grievous hurt, to the extent of Rs.2.5 lakhs. The relevant Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is reproduced as under: “Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the ti the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of 2006 (O&M) permanent disability due to the alleged accident. However, this is not satisfied with the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal as Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and in the amended Section there is no requirement regarding permanent disability for claiming compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the compensation should have to be enhanced as per substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act. the appellant herein is entitled to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the sum of Rs.5 lakh and in case of grievous hurt, extent of Rs.2.5 lakhs. The relevant Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is reproduced as under: “Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of -7- permanent disability due to the alleged accident. However, this is not satisfied with the reasoning given by the learned A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and in the amended Section there is no requirement regarding permanent disability for claiming compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the compensation should have to be enhanced as per substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act. Therefore, ant herein is entitled to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the sum of Rs.5 lakh and in case of grievous hurt, extent of Rs.2.5 lakhs. The relevant Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is reproduced as under:- “Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any me being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 1059-200 grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. (2) In any claim for compensation under sub claimant shall not be required to plead o death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person. (3) Where, in respect of death or grie accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section. 13. In view of the above referred to judgment, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 14. Further, this Court and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others “11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Sectio provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. 2006 (O&M) grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. (2) In any claim for compensation under sub claimant shall not be required to plead o death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person. (3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section.” In view of the above referred to judgment, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Further, this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006 and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others” held as under: 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Sectio provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. -8- grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle vous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under In view of the above referred to judgment, the award passed by the FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as “Akaljit Kaur ” held as under:- 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. [2022(4) TAC 738] held that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. In view of the above referred to judgment, the award passed by the Akaljit Kaur Ram Murti and others Vs. held that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision n 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 1059-200 12. This Court in Happy and Others Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the irregularities and not illeg been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make every effort by exercising its discre to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision should be such that they strengthen the trust and confid of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary 15. In view of the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated held entitled to compensation to the tune Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 16. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation Supreme Court Cases 107, on the awarded amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. 2006 (O&M) 12. This Court in FAO-195-2006 Happy and Others, decided on 29.05.2024, held that sin Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the irregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make every effort by exercising its discretion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision should be such that they strengthen the trust and confid of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary In view of the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated 04.04.2005 is set-aside and held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellant is granted the interest @ on the awarded amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its -9- 2006 titled as Mamta and Others Vs. , decided on 29.05.2024, held that since Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only alities which cannot be cured. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make every effort by exercising its tion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision should be such that they strengthen the trust and confidence of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary.” In view of the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is aside and the claimant/appellant of Rs. 2.5 lakh, as per provisions So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its Mamta and Others Vs. ce Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only alities which cannot be cured. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make every effort by exercising its tion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The Court ence In view of the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is the claimant/appellant is s of So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme 2019 ACJ 3176 (2022) 5 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 1059-200 17. So offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, to what effect? OPR learned Tribunal on Issue the matter to the learned Tribunal to give its finding liability to pay the compensation to the appellant 18. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.05.2025 and the learned Tribunal shall decide the above issue expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from 19. Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current schedule fees to Mr. the date of receipt of certified copy of this order 18.07.2024 passed by this Court in F 20. Pending application April 28, 2025 Gaurav Arora 2006 (O&M) far as issue No. 5 is concerned i.e offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, to what effect? OPR”, since, no finding was recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 5, therefore, this Court deems it fit to remand back the matter to the learned Tribunal to give its finding liability to pay the compensation to the appellant Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on and the learned Tribunal shall decide the above issue expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of copy of this judgment Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current schedule fees to Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate, within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order 18.07.2024 passed by this Court in FAO No.1682 of 2007 Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable -10 concerned i.e “5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time ince, no finding was recorded by the , therefore, this Court deems it fit to remand back the matter to the learned Tribunal to give its findings on issue No. 5 as well as liability to pay the compensation to the appellant. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on and the learned Tribunal shall decide the above issue expeditiously, the receipt of copy of this judgment Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current , Advocate, within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, , pursuant to order dated AO No.1682 of 2007. , if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes 10- 5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time ince, no finding was recorded by the , therefore, this Court deems it fit to remand back No. 5 as well as Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on and the learned Tribunal shall decide the above issue expeditiously, the receipt of copy of this judgment. Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current , Advocate, within a period of twenty days from order dated Gaurav Arora 2025.05.06 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document