IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

207 FAO-5149-2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: January 10, 2025 Mohinder Pal and others ......Appellants Vs.

Yadvinder Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. R.P. Daaria, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate and Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

05.04.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants for grant of compensation, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 20.7.2004, Mam Chand was on the way back to his house at village Harwa Kalan on bicycle after doing his work as usual. Hardeep Singh and Jit Singh were also coming with him on their separate bicycles. When, he reached near the culvert in the area of village Harwa Kalan, a car bearing temporary No. 61-VHQ-0350-TA, Regn. No. HR-02-L-9595) being driven rashly and negligently by Yadevinder Singh came from the opposite side and hit him. He fell down and sustained multiple injuries on his person. Hardeep Singh and Jit Singh took him to the hospital but he succumbed to his injures on the way. One Ravinder Kumar made the complaint to the police and on its basis, case FIR. No. 92 dated 20.7.2004 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Bilaspur.

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 death of Mam Chand occurred in a road side accident by the use of vehicle No. HR-02L-9595?OPP

2.If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative then to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3.Whether the claimants are legal heirs of Mam Chand deceased?

OPP

4.Relief.

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

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contend that the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that Maruti car was not involved in the accident. He further contends 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. Further, 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.

Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be granted to the appellants/claimants as per settled law.

7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of the award and contends that the award has rightly been dismissed by the Ld.

Tribunal. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the