FAO-1571-2014 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:069232

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(209)

FAO-1571-2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision : May 12, 2023

Suman

.. Appellant

Versus

Rajender Saini and others

.. Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, with

Mr. Komal Jit Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-5266-CII-2014

As prayed for, the application is allowed.

Delay of 45 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-1571-2014

1.

Present appeal has been filed against the Award of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar dated 08.07.2013 by which, the claim

petition was dismissed on the ground that the same was filed under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the involvement of the offending

vehicle could not be proved.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as

the grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial

legislation, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on its own should have

converted the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act to

Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act rather than dismissing the same

HARSHA RANI

2023.05.18 14:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

FAO-1571-2014 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:069232

2

and should have adjudicated the claim of the claimants under the said

section.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2

submits that the claimants should have been vigilant enough to claim the

benefit under the appropriate provision of law but once they have not

claimed any benefit under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, the

Tribunal was well justified in declining the claim as raised under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

5.

It is not in dispute that there was an accident. It is also not in

dispute that two persons lost their lives in the said accident. The Tribunal

should have been compassionate enough to give a chance to the claimants to

convert their claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act to be a

claim under Section 163-A of the said Act. Nothing has come on record

that the said opportunity was even given to the claimants. That being so,

the Award is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Tribunal to deal

the said claim to be a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act,

by giving due opportunity to both the parties to present their case in

accordance with law.

6.

The present appeal is disposed of in above terms.

May 12, 2023

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

harsha

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

HARSHA RANI

2023.05.18 14:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment