IN TH 228 The Orien Ram Krish CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU dated 05.1 Chandigarh claim petit Section 163 ‘the Act’) deceased S compensati pleadings a FAO-515-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR FAO No.515 of 2 Date of decision Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Krishan and another AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Co None for respondent No.1. HI GUPTA J. (Oral) The Insurance Company is in 05.10.2012 passed by the Motor A digarh (hereinafter referred to be as ‘ petition bearing MACT Case No.10 on 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (h Act’) has been allowed, and the sol ased Sharda Devi/ respondent No.1 ensation of Rs.5,19,200/-. Brief facts of the case are th ings and the evidence led by the pa 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 15 of 2013 cision :-14.01.2025 …..Appellant …..Respondents E NIDHI GUPTA ce Company. y is in appeal against the Award tor Accident Claims Tribunal, be as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the No.102 of 10.3.2011 filed under Act (hereinafter referred to be as sole claimant/husband of the No.1 herein, has been granted are that the on the basis of the the parties, the learned Tribunal VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document concluded suffered by 08.1.2011 bearing reg ‘the offend owner and assails the of the Act of compen of ₹5,19,20 appellant- owner of th and the d Rs.5,00,000 have been for the appe perused the Tribunal on concluded suffered by 08.1.2011 d FAO-515-2013 luded that the deceased Sharda Devi h red by her in a motor vehicular ac .2011 due to the accident arising out ng registration No.CH01-AC-2877 (h offending vehicle’) being driven by th er and driver of the said offending vehi Learned counsel for the app ls the impugned Award on the ground e Act maximum amount of Rs.5,00,00 mpensation; whereas, vide the impu ,200/– has been awarded. It is further contended by -Insurance Company that the er of the offending vehicle/motor-cycl the deceased; and therefore, the ,00,000/- ought to be deducted by 50% been a claimant/beneficiary of the Aw No other argument is raised o e appellant-Insurance Company. I have heard learned couns sed the case file in great detail. Perusal of the record of the c nal on the basis of the pleadings and luded that the deceased Sharda Dev red by her in a motor vehicular ac .2011 due to the use of the offending v 2 Devi had died due to the injuries lar accident that took place on g out of use of the motor cycle 877 (hereinafter referred to be as n by the respondent No.2 who is g vehicle. e appellant-Insurance Company ground that as per Section 163-A ,00,000/- can be awarded by way impugned Award compensation d by learned counsel for the the respondent No.2/driver and cycle is the son of the claimant the compensation amount of by 50% as the accused could not he Award. ised on behalf of learned counsel counsel for the appellant and f the case shows that the learned s and evidence led by the parties, a Devi had died to the injuries lar accident that took place on ding vehicle by respondent No.2. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Consequen claimant/hu Section 163 Act, compe provided i Rs.5,00,000 only ₹19,2 reference m in (SC) SL Ltd. Vs. V difference warrant int is within p Supreme Managing Others” L appellant- claimant an be made in perusal of learned Tri Kumar; wh whatsoever of the dece FAO-515-2013 equentially, compensation of Rs.5,19 ant/husband of the deceased/respo on 163-A of the Act. No doubt in a claim petition compensation is to be awarded in a st ided in the 2nd Schedule to the ,00,000/-.However, in the present case ₹19,200 has been awarded to the c ence may be made to judgment of SLP No.13931 of 2017 titled as Vinish Jain & Others”, wherein rence in compensation is about 4 to 5 ant interference by the Court as, such ithin permissible limits. The abovesaid Court has been followed by the K aging Director, Divisional Contro rs” Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188. Even the second contention o -Insurance Company that respon ant and the deceased, and therefore d ade in the awarded compensation, is sal of Memo of Parties before this ed Tribunal shows that respondent No ar; whereas the claimant is Ram Kris soever on record to indicate that the e deceased and the claimant. In any ev 3 s.5,19,200/- was awarded to the /respondent No.1 herein under tition underSection 163-A of the in a structured formula strictly as the Act, and cannot exceed nt case compensation in excess of the claimant. In this situation, t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court “New India Assurance Co. herein it has been held that where 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not , such variation in compensation ovesaid judgment of the Hon’ble y the Kerala High Court in “The ontroller Versus Alikutty and ntion of learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is son of the efore deduction of 50% ought to , is liable to be rejected as, a e this Court as also before the ent No.1 is Sunil Kumar s/o Ram Krishan. Thus, there is nothing at the respondent No.2 is the son any event, even if for the sake of VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document argument, and the cla was filed o Sharda Dev the said so awarded am only to the for the app objection w Tribunal. dismissed. January 1 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo FAO-515-2013 ment, it is assumed that respondent no he claimant, the same is liable to be re filed only on behalf of Ram Krishan, da Devi; and compensation of ₹5,19,2 aid sole claimant. As such, question o ded amount does not arise as the entire to the sole claimant/respondent No.1. he appellant-Insurance Company is un ction was raised by the Insurance Co In view of the above noted f issed. Pending application(s), if any, 14, 2025 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 4 ent no.2is the son of the deceased o be rejected as the claim petition , the husband of the deceased ₹5,19,200/– was also awarded to stion of deduction of 50% of the e entire amount has been awarded No.1. Moreover, learned counsel is unable to make out that this ce Company before the learned oted facts, the present appeal is if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document