Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 53784 (PNJ)

GULAB SINGH AND ANR. v. JASMER SINGH AND ORS.

FAO/4245/2007 · 2025-03-06

Sudeepti Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

FAO. 4245-2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Gulab Singh and another Jasmer Singh and other CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Sukhdev Singh and Mr. Aashish Gupta, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 23.07.2007 passed in the claim petition under Section Accident Claims Tribunal of compensation granted to the claimants/appellants who died in a motor vehicular accident claimants/appellants alongwith interest @ 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-4245-2007 Reserved on: 28.02.2025 Pronounced on: Gulab Singh and another Vs. and others HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Sukhdev Singh and Mr. Aashish Gupta, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Co. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated passed in the claim petition bearing 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal') of compensation granted to the claimants/appellants who died in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on claimants/appellants were granted compensation to the tune of alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum. 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) Reserved on: 28.02.2025 Pronounced on: 06.03.2025 ......Appellant(s) ......Respondent(s) SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Sukhdev Singh and Mr. Aashish Gupta, Advocates The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated bearing MACT No. 165 of 2007 filed of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants/appellants on account of death of Payal occurred on 22.10.2005, whereby the ompensation to the tune of Rs.1,52,000/ 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 filed by the learned Motor for enhancement Payal, whereby the 2,000/- As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 4245-2007 SUBMISSIONS OF THE 3. Learned counsel for the claimants submissions:- 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent however, vehemently argues that the award 2007 (O&M) SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS Learned counsel for the claimants- 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 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 -appellants 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, .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, has rightly been passed and the amount appellants 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, has rightly been passed and the amount Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 4245-2007 of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. thus 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 claimants-appellants death of their daughter Since section 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) liable to be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act, therefor beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament 164 provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in case 7. 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 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievou Rs.2.5 lakhs. 2007 (O&M) of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. thus 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 appellants filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of ir daughter-Payal who was aged about ection 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of , therefore, the appellants herein are entitled beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament 164 provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in case of grievous hurt to the extent of Rs.2.5 lakhs 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 death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievou Rs.2.5 lakhs. -3- of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole A perusal of the award indicates that in the present case, filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of who was aged about 30 years at the time of accident 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), compensation be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of are entitled to be granted the benefit of under Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 of Rs.2.5 lakhs. 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 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 He, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole the filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of accident. substituted by Section 164 compensation is be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of to be granted the benefit of Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 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 Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of s hurt of Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 4245-2007 12. Others Vs. Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provi application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the irregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. loss caused to the claim 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 w 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 8. In view of the above, award dated 23. 163-A (pre 2018 Vehicles Act, 1988. compensation to the tune of disbursed equally amongst the claimants 9. 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, 2007 (O&M) 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 provi 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 w 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 .07.2007 is modified by converting the claim petition under Section 2018 amendment) to Section 164 (post Vehicles Act, 1988. As such, the claimants/appellant compensation to the tune of Rs.3,48,000/- (5 equally amongst the claimants/appellants 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 appellants-claimants are granted the interest @ -4- -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 ants 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 w 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.” the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the converting the claim petition under Section amendment) to Section 164 (post 2018 amendment) of the Motor he claimants/appellants are held entitled to 5,00,000-1,52,000), which shall be /appellants. 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 claimants are granted the interest @ Mamta and , decided on 29.05.2024, held that since Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not sions, 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 ants 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 .” Accordingly, the converting the claim petition under Section amendment) of the Motor are held entitled to , which shall be So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme 2019 ACJ 3176 (2022) 5 claimants are granted the interest @ Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO. 4245-2007 9% per annum on the enhanced amount the date of its realization 10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The appellants details to the Insurance Company/Tribunal. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the bank accounts of the appellants 11. Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current schedule fees to the date of receipt of certified copy of this 12. Pending applications, if any, also 06.03.2025 Gaurav Arora 2007 (O&M) 9% 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 from today. The appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Insurance Company/Tribunal. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the bank accounts of the appellants-claimants. Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current schedule fees to Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, within a period of the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment Pending applications, if any, also stand (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable -5- from the date of filing of claim petition till The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Insurance Company/Tribunal. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in equal shares imants. Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current , within a period of twenty days from judgment. stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes from the date of filing of claim petition till amount of along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Insurance Company/Tribunal. The Tribunal is further directed to in equal shares Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current days from Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document