FAO. 3270-2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Smt. Saroj Mrs. Monika and CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. for the appellant. Mr. for respondent **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 16.04.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal') claimant/appellant vehicular accident granted compensation to the tune of 2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity. 2007 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3270-2007 Date of decision Vs. and another HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Sukhdev Singh and Mr. Vikram Singh for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No. 2-Insurance Co. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated passed in the claim petition filed under Section 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant/appellant on account of death of Parmod Kumar vehicular accident, occurred on 14.05.2004, whereby the ompensation to the tune of Rs.3,15,000/ As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 7 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.05.2025 ......Appellant ......Respondents SUDEEPTI SHARMA Sukhdev Singh and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocates Insurance Co. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh ement of compensation granted to the Parmod Kumar, who died in a motor , whereby the claimant/appellant w ,000/-. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated of the Motor Chandigarh ement of compensation granted to the , who died in a motor was As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 3270-2007 SUBMISSIONS OF THE 3. Learned counsel for the claimant submissions:- 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount 2007 (O&M) SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS earned counsel for the claimant- i) That the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. ii) That Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act. iii) That the present case is covered by rendered by this Court in “Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others wherein the claim under Section 163 Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 738] wherein it was held that Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01. payment of compensation in case of death Rs.5 lakhs and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount -2- COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -appellant has made the following hat the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on 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 compensation should be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section That the present case is covered by the judgment this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others herein the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, w.e.f 01.04.2022) by relying upon the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC herein it was held that Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) provides for compensation in case of death in the amount of case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount appellant has made the following hat the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on is now substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section the judgment , titled as Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others.” A of the Motor Vehicles of Motor Vehicles Act, by relying upon the Ram Murti [2022(4) TAC herein it was held that Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles provides for the amount of Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 3270-2007 of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Learned counsel vehemently oppo Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) is not entitled to 9% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. 6. A perusal of the award indicates that appellant filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of Parmod Kumar 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act therefore, the appellant herein provisions enacted by the Parliament provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in case of grievous hurt 7. The argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant/claimant is not entitled to 9% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation in the claim petition filed under Section 163 untenable, in view of Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma the judgment reads as under: 2007 (O&M) of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Learned counsel vehemently opposed the converting of present claim petition from A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to 164 of the (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022). He further contends that the claimant/appellant is not entitled to 9% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. prays for dismissal of the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. A perusal of the award indicates that filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of Parmod Kumar who was aged about 21 years at the time of 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) enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act e, the appellant herein is entitled to be granted the benefit of beneficial enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh grievous hurt to the extent of Rs.2.5 lakh The argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant/claimant is not entitled to 9% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation in the claim petition filed under Section 163 untenable, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 the judgment reads as under:- -3- of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. sed the converting of present claim petition from to 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 He further contends that the claimant/appellant is not entitled to 9% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. He, thus I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole A perusal of the award indicates that in the present case, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of years at the time of accident. Since section substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022), compensation is liable to enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act to be granted the benefit of beneficial under Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh of Rs.2.5 lakh. The argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance that the appellant/claimant is not entitled to 9% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1961, is Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ 2019 ACJ 3176. The relevant portion of of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. sed the converting of present claim petition from Act, 1988 He further contends that the claimant/appellant He, thus I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole the claimant- death of ection substituted by Section 164 of Motor is liable to be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act, to be granted the benefit of beneficial 164 provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh Insurance that the appellant/claimant is not entitled to 9% interest on the enhanced amount of A of the Act, 1961, is Dara Singh @ The relevant portion of Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 3270-2007 “6. Vide order dated 20.11.2015, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim granting compensation of @ 9% per annum with litigation cost of Rs. 500/ 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court . The High MA No.134/2016 partly allowed t compensation by Rs. 4,00,000/ appeal. 8. Having the appellant has lost his left hand from the shoulder level and his femur had to be replaced and he suffered disability to the extent of 90%, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we enhance the compensation by Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) over and above to what has been granted by the High interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.” 8. Further, this Court and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others “11. others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Section 1 2007 (O&M) 6. Vide order dated 20.11.2015, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim granting compensation of Rs. 1,62,500/ @ 9% per annum with litigation cost of Rs. 500/ 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the High . The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 13.08.2018 in MA No.134/2016 partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by Rs. 4,00,000/- in lumpsum without interest. Hence the 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, as the appellant has lost his left hand from the shoulder level and his femur be replaced and he suffered disability to the extent of 90%, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we enhance the compensation by Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) over and above to what has been granted by the High Court . The enhanced compensat interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.” 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 others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 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 -4- 6. Vide order dated 20.11.2015, the Tribunal partly allowed the Rs. 1,62,500/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum with litigation cost of Rs. 500/- 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the High vide impugned judgment dated 13.08.2018 in he appeal and enhanced the in lumpsum without interest. Hence the heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, as the appellant has lost his left hand from the shoulder level and his femur be replaced and he suffered disability to the extent of 90%, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we enhance the compensation by Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) over and above to what has been . The enhanced compensation shall carry the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as “Akaljit Kaur ” held as under:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [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 64 provides for payment of compensation in the case of 6. Vide order dated 20.11.2015, the Tribunal partly allowed the along with simple interest vide impugned judgment dated 13.08.2018 in he appeal and enhanced the in lumpsum without interest. Hence the heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, as the appellant has lost his left hand from the shoulder level and his femur be replaced and he suffered disability to the extent of 90%, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we enhance the compensation by Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) over and above to what has been ion shall carry the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the Akaljit Kaur Ram Murti and held that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which 64 provides for payment of compensation in the case of Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 3270-2007 death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. 12. Others Vs. 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 the irregularities and not illegal cured. 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 discret 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 confi 9. In view of the above, award dated 16.04.2007 163-A (pre 2018 Vehicles Act, 1988. compensation to the tune of 10. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2007 (O&M) death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. 12. This Court in FAO- Others Vs. Happy and Others, 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 the irregularities and not illegal 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 confidence of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. 16.04.2007 is modified by converting the claim petition under Section 2018 amendment) to Section 164 (post Vehicles Act, 1988. As such, the claimant/appellant compensation to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- (5,00, So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma -5- death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of -195-2006 titled as Mamta and , 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 the irregularities and not illegalities which cannot be 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 ion 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 dence of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary.” the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the converting the claim petition under Section amendment) to Section 164 (post 2018 amendment) of the Motor /appellant is held entitled to enhanced ,000-3,15,000). 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 death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Mamta and , 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 ities which cannot be 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 ion 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 .” Accordingly, the converting the claim petition under Section amendment) of the Motor enhanced So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme 2019 ACJ 3176 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 3270-2007 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation Supreme Court Cases 107, per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization 11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation along wit from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment directed to furnish 12. Further Insurance Company is scheduled fee to the date of receipt of copy of this passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 by this Court 13. Pending 08.05.2025 Gaurav Arora 2007 (O&M) R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellant-claimant per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months the date of receipt of copy of this judgment directed to furnish her bank account details to the Insurance Company/Tribunal. Further Insurance Company is fee to Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate, within a period of the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, in view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 by this Court. Pending application (s), if any, also (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable -6- R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 claimant is granted the interest @ per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount h interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The appellant-claimant bank account details to the Insurance Company/Tribunal. Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current , within a period of twenty days from in view of the order dated 18.07.2024 , if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes (2022) 5 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the amount of h interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months claimant is bank account details to the Insurance Company/Tribunal. directed to disburse the current days from in view of the order dated 18.07.2024 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document