IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (218)

FAO-6646-2012 Date of decision:- 03.09.2025 Raavi Devi ...Appellant Versus Gurmel Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.-Insurance Company.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Widow of the deceased-Abdul Mazid has filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 14.09.2012, vide which the claim petition filed by the present appellant had been dismissed only on account of the fact that the appellant/claimant could not prove the negligence on the part of respondent No.1.

2. The fact that the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB65-C- 0434 was involved in the accident fact, that respondent No.1 was the driver of the said motorcycle, respondent No.2 was the owner of the said motorcycle and that it was insured with respondent No.3 has not been disputed before this Court. It is jointly submitted that the only issue which arises for consideration before this Court is the amount of compensation to which the present appellant is entitled to.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even in case the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh to the extent that the present appellant had not been able to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent is upheld, then also, as per the provisions of Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board”, reported as 2023 ACJ 631, in similar facts and circumstances, was pleased to grant compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in a case where the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not proved. In the said case also, although the accident had taken place on 23.05.1991 and the award in the said case was passed on 12.04.1994, yet the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given the benefit of the beneficial provisions of Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provision had been incorporated by the Act 32 of 2019. It is further submitted that in view of the same, the said amount be paid along with interest to the claimant from the date of the application till the date of the actual payment. It is also submitted that the present case be treated as a case under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended and that the amount be released along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company has argued that in the present case, the accident had taken place on 16.01.2004 and even as per the provision of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was in force at that time, only an amount of Rs.50,000/- was payable on account of no fault liability and thus, at best, the claimant could claim Rs.50,000/- on account of no fault liability. It is submitted that the present appellant is claiming the benefit of the amended provision by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti (supra) and is also claiming a very high rate of interest which would give double benefit to the appellant. It is submitted that in case, the benefit of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is to be given to the appellant, the rate of interest should not be more than 6% per annum.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

6. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 initially provided that compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/- would be payable in the case of death of a person and in such a situation, the claimant was not required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim had been made was due to any wrongful act, negligence or default of th