IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:26.02.2026 Deepa Rani and other .…Appellants Versus Gurvinder Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Archit Garg, Advocate for Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimants against the dismissal of their claim petition bearing MACP Case No. 205 dated 19.04.2017filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide impugned Award dated 19.11.2024.The 05 claimants are the: i) 43- year-old widow; ii) 18-year-old daughter; iii) 16-year-old son; and iv) parents of deceased-Anil Kumar who was 41 years old at the time of accident. The present appeal has been filed by claimants No. 1 to 3 i.e. widow and minor children; whereas parents of the deceased are impleaded as proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 herein.

2. It was the pleaded case of the claimants that deceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on10.1.2017 at 7:10 AM due to rash and negligent driving of Car XUV Mahindra bearing registration No. HR-06-AA-0080 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) which is owned and driven by respondent No. 1- Gurvinder Singh. However, upon appraisal of pleadings and evidence adduced before it, the learned Tribunal had concluded that accident in question had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-06-AA-0080 being driven by the respondent. 3. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal was in error in holding that the accident in question had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1. Moreover, the ld. Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the bare perusal of Section 163-A of the Act would show that the same is a special provision as, it is so detailed in the heading of the Section inasmuch as, it is stated that Section is a special provision relating to the payment of compensation on structured formula basis. The said provision opens with a non obstante clause and encumbers a liability upon the owner of the vehicle or the authorized insurer to become liable to pay, compensation to the aggrieved, in the case of death or permanent disability owing to an accident arising out of the “use of the vehicle”, in the manner detailed in the second schedule to the victim or to legal heirs of the deceased/victim. It is submitted that expression “arising out of the use of motor vehicle”, as used therein, are naturally to be assigned a meaning, that “the mere user of the vehicle”, irrespective of attribution of faulty or attribution of negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle. From the expressions, that the attribution of fault to the driver of the offending vehicle is neither required to be pleaded nor is required to be established.

4. It is further submitted that in dismissing the claim petition, the learned Tribunal has failed to take into account the legislative intent and spirit of the Act and the provisions thereof. It is argued that it is a beneficial legislation and the provisions thereof are to be interpreted liberally. Learned counsel submits that the Courts have allowed amendments of petition under Section 166 by incorporating relevant provisions of Section 163-A of the Act. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to give due weightage to the principle of just compensation. The factum of death of Anil Kumar is not disputed. As such, the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to convert the claim petition under Section 166 to a petition under Section 163A of the Act, keeping in mind the intent of the Act. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting a