JUDGMENT : 

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 17.07.2008 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant/appellant on account of death of Rajesh, who died in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 20.09.2006, whereby the claimants/appellants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,42,350/-.

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.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has made the following submissions:-

i) That the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side.

ii) That Section 163-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) 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 the judgment rendered by this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as “Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others.” wherein the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022 (4) TAC 738] wherein it was held that Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He, 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 in the present case, the claimants-appellants filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Rajesh who was aged about 27/28 years at the time of accident.

7. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has fallen into manifest error in restricting the compensation to 50% of the assessed amount on the premise that the accident occurred due to the use of both vehicles, namely the tractor (offending vehicle) and the motorcycle being ridden by the deceased, and further on the ground that the claim petition was not filed against the owner of the motorcycle. The said approach of the Tribunal is legally unsustainable and reflects a clear misapplication of the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

8. Section 163-A embodies a special social security measure and provides for payment of compensation on a no-fault basis. Once it is established that the death or permanent disablement has arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle, the Tribunal is not required to enter into an enquiry with regard to negligence, contributory negligence, or apportionment of liability between multiple vehicles. The statute does not contemplate reduction of compensation on the basis of alleged involvement of another vehicle.

9. The learned Tribunal, by apportioning liability in the ratio of 50:50 and denying the claimants the balance compensation solely on account of non- impleadment of the owner of the motorcycle, has effectively put the cart before the horse. Such an approach defeats the very object and legislative intent of Section 163-A, which seeks to provide expeditious and assured relief to victims of motor vehicle accid