IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-804-2006(O&M)

Date of Decision: February 14, 2025 Harbans Kaur and ors. ......Appellants Versus Naveen Parashar & ors. ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Goyal, Advocate for appellant Nos 2 to 5.

Mr. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance company ****

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 08.10.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, 'the Tribunal') was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.02.2004, Hukam Singh (since deceased) along with Gurtej Singh and Darshan Singh was going on scooter bearing registration No. PB-31-A-1312 to Jhunir, in the meantime, a santro car bearing registration No. HP-14-A-0474 came from opposite direction, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the scooter of Hukam Singh (since deceased). As a result of this accident, Hukam Singh (since deceased) and other persons sustained multiple injuries on the various parts of their bodies. Respondent No. 1 fled away from the spot alongwith his car.

Hukam Singh was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he succumbed to his injuries on 20.02.2004.

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 death of Hukam Singh took place in a motor vehicle accident which allegedly took place on 16.02.2004 with vehicle No.

HP-14-A-0474 alleged to be driven by Naveen Parashar? OPA

2. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence and if so, to what effect? OPR

3. Whether respondent N. 2 was not holding a valid registration certificate and if so, to what effect? OPR4. Whether the claim petition has been filed by the claimants in connivance with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, if so what effect? OPR

5 Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

6. Whether the claimants are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present claim petition? OPR

7. Whether the claimants have received compensation from the owner through compromise dated 20.02.2004, if so what effect?

OPR

8. Whether claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?

OPR

9. To how much amount the claimants are entitled and from whom?

OPA

10.Relief.”

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

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends that the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that no accident took place with Santro Car. He further submitted 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 Act.

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 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) provides for payment of compe