JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The present reference generates from the making of the hereinafter extracted order by the learned Single Bench of this Court.

"There are conflicting views expressed by Single Benches of the Court with regard to compensation qua medical expenses payable to the victim under Section 163-A of the Act. In FAO No. 3874 of 2013, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Kulwinder Kaur and another decided on 26.7.2013, FAO No. 231 of 2008 United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Ved Parkash and another decided on 22.3.2017, FAO No. 4844 of 2014 Vijay Pal vs. Ved Parakash and another decided on 24.1.2018, it has been held that the injured is entitle to expenses incurred on medical treatment even if the amount exceeds Rs. 15,000/-.

Another Bench in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sonu and others FAO No. 505 of 2013 decided on 27.4.2016 has taken a contrary view that limitation set down under Section 163-A of the Act cannot be crossed over on imaginative grounds which are opposed to statuary provisions and limited claim for medical expenses is to the tune of Rs. 15000/- as against Rs. 3,00,727/- awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of actual expenses incurred by the victim.

In death cases, where the claim is made under Section 163-A of the Act, compensation is awarded strictly in consonance with the structured formula provided in the 2nd Schedule.

The legislature did not respond to directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Puttamma and others vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another 2014(1)RCR (Civil) 443 Civil Appeal No.10918 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 4639 of 2010) decided on 9.12.2013 to immediately make proper amendments to the 2nd Schedule, in view of the present cost of living. However, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued notification dated 22.5.2018 whereby the 2nd Schedule has been amended allowing compensation of Rs. 5 lakh in case of death, Rs. 25000/- for minor injury and minimum compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of permanent disability.

Keeping in view the importance of the issue and divergent views of single Benches, this court feels it necessary that the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief justice for constituting a larger Bench."

2. In pursuance thereto the Hon'ble Chief Justice, has referred the thereins stated question of law for an answer thereto becoming rendered by the instantly constituted larger Bench.

3. Before proceeding to render an answer to all the FAOs (supra), a similar order has been passed and also a similar reference under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, thus has been made to the instantly constituted Larger Bench.

FACTUAL BACKDROP

4. The motor vehicle accident which resulted in the filing of the respective claim petitions by the claimants, before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short the Tribunal'), arose from a FIR common to each of them, inasmuch as, the apposite claim petitions arise from FIR No.59 of 29.01.2013, registered at Police Station Assandh. In the said FIR allegations were made that on on 27.1.2013, the injured claimant Gurjinder Kaur, along with her husband Gurdeep Singh and injured son Jobanpreet Singh, rather had started journey from village Bansa to Assandh, in Mahindra Bolero Jeep No. HR-05V-6000. The said vehicle was being driven by respondent-Narinder Singh. At about 7.00 P.M., when they reached near Sugar Mill Road, Phaphrana, then one tractor attached with two trolleys loaded with sugar canes rather was found parked in the middle of the road but without any indicators. Even otherwise, no bricks or stones were placed on the backside of the trolleys, thus to show the presence of the tractor attached with two trolleys. Consequently when their jeep reached near the said parked tractor, then in the meanwhile, another vehicle came from the opposite side, and, in the glaring lights of the said vehicle, the (supra) driver one Narinder Singh, thus could not sight the said parked