IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 28, 2025 Charanjit Sharma ......Appellant Vs.

Subhash and others ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3– Insurance Company.

***

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 04.04.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal') dismissed the claim petition of the appellant.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2003, the appellant being pillion rider was returning to Karnal from Haridwar on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05-M-4594, being driven by Subhash. When they reached near village Kurali, a cow suddenly appeared on the road. Subhash applied the brakes in order to save the cow. In that process, the motorcycle slipped and both fell down on the road. The appellant sustained multiple injuries including compound fracture of proximal phalanx. He was shifted to City Orthopaedic Hospital and X-ray centre, Karnal, where he remained admitted from 03.08.2003 to 16.08.2003. He was operated upon their and POP was applied on his leg.

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

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

1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05-M- 4594 by its driver-respondent No. 1 and whether Charanjit Sharma-

petitioner received injuries in the said accident? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPP

3. Whether the petitioner m has got no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR

5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR

6. To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to claim and from whom? OPP

7.Relief.”

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

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that the injuries mentioned in the disability certificate does not find mention in any of the injuries deemed to result in permanent/partial disablement. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant does not suffer permanent injury due to the alleged accident, therefore, the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will not be applicable in the present case. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed. He further submits 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 granted as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. He further submitted 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 1