JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 22.09.2004 for enhancement of the compensation awarded in MACT Case No.9 of 2001 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.2,69,500/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of the death of Gurdev Singh in a motor vehicular accident.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

“1. Whether the petitioners are only legal heirs of deceased Gurdev Singh and entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP

2. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR2

3. Whether the respondent No.3 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR4.

4. Whether the respondent No.5 not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR6

5. Relief.”

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,69,500/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of death of Gurdev Singh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment/enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held that the accident in question had taken place on account of use of vehicles bearing No.HR-24-B-0945, HR-39-2772 and GJ-12-U-7524 which are owned by respondents No.1, 3 & 5 and insured with respondents No.2, 4 and 6 respectively and insurers of the abovesaid vehicles were held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with so far as liability of respondents is concerned.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that initially the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act and now Section 164 has been inserted in place of Section 163-A in the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which, the claimants are entitled to the compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of a person on whom the claimants were dependent. Learned counsel further contended that Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 ACJ 631 Ram Murti & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board has retrospectively applied the provision contained in Section 164 of the Act and has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- in the case of death which had taken place prior to Motor Vehicles (Amendment) vide Act No.32 of 2019 and the claimants too are thus entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments reported as Law Finder Doc ID #2642801 Santosh @ Munna Devi and Ors. Vs. Swaranjti Singh and Ors. and judgment dated 23.01.2024 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO-5204-2006 Chhailu & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the judgment in Ram Murti’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case and sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation and there is no scope for further enhancement.

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti’s case (supra) has held as under:-

"7. The provisions of Section 140 which formed a part of Chap