234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

FAO-5192-2006 (O&M) Reserved on : 20.11.2024 Pronounced on:-19.12.2024 Suresh Kumar and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Arun Kumar and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No.3.

-.-

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against award dated 12.08.2006 passed in claim petition filed under Sections 163-A/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants/appellants, who are legal heirs of the deceased.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.05.2005, respondent No.1 Arun Kumar was taking her sister Sudha @ Gayatri on motor cycle No.HR-35-B-6878 from Narnaul to Niyamatpur. At about 5/6:00 PM, when they reached near village Nayan, a stray dog came in front of the motorcycle. Respondent No.1 Arun Kumar tried to save his motorcycle so that it did not strike the stray dog. It lost control and resultantly Gayatri @ Sudha (since deceased) fell from the motor cycle and received multiple injuries including injuries on her head. The said accident was seen by Chhaju Ram and one Sanwat Ram. Sudha @ Gayatri was taken to Nangal TRIPTI SAINI Chaudhary for medical aid and from there, she was referred to SMS Jaipur, where she succumbed to her injuries on 12.05.2005. The accident occurred on account of negligent driving of motorcycle by respondent No.1.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether petitioners prove that Sudha @ Gayatri died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 11.05.2005 at about 5/6:00 PM while she was travelling on motor-cycle bearing No.HR-35-B-6878 as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are the LRs – dependants of the deceased? OPP

3. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

5. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? OPR

6. Relief.

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,24,112/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

TRIPTI SAINI SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. 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.

iv) That the Tribunal has erred in absolving insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the deceased was a pillion rider and the policy in T