IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-646-2007 (O&M)

Reserved on: 14.05.2025 Pronounced on 29/05/2025 Sikander Abbas Jafri @ S.A. Jafri ......Appellant Vs.

Ajit Kumar Jain and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company.

*****

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

04.08.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant for grant of compensation, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 5.10.2002, the petitioner was proceeding towards his factory situated at Rozka Meo, Sohna on foot on Kachha portion of the road. At about 4.30 p.m. when he reached near Punjab National Bank, Sohna an Indica car bearing registration No. RJ-02-C-4932 appeared from behind, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently. The car struck with the petitioner and resultantly the petitioner sustained serious and grievous injuries on his body. The petitioner sustained permanent disability as his both legs were got fractured and crushed. The left leg ankle of the petitioner was dislocated. The petitioner was taken to Thakural Nursing Home, Gurgaon where he was operated upon. He remained confined to bed even after filing of the present claim petition also. He spent an amount of Rs.90,000/- for his treatment. The matter was reported to the police regarding this accident whereupon DDR was registered at S.No. 15 on 6.10.2002 at Police Station Sohna.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

1. Whether accident in question was caused by respondent no. 1 by driving Indica car No. RJ-02-C-4932 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether claimant is entitled to any compensation on account of injuries, permanent disability suffered by him in the accident and if so, to what extent and from whom?

OPP

3. Whether respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and if so, its effect? OPR(3)

4. Relief.

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition. Hence the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant of compensation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends as under:- (i) That the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that the income of the appellant was more than Rs.40,000/- per year.

(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 be granted as per the substituted statutory provision i.e.

Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles 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 lakh and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakh.

iv) That considering the benef