IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.11.2025 Devi Dayal ...Appellant Versus Som Nath and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3.

*****

VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant (Devi Dayal) aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), vide the impugned award dated 03.09.2005, owing to a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on

20.09.2003 in which the appellant suffered injuries.

2. Since the factum of the accident and injuries suffered by the appellant are not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal, in the present case, held that the claimant had not been able to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and hence, held that the appellant was entitled to compensation on the principle of no fault under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘1988 Act’).

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that the Tribunal has correctly awarded compensation on the principle of no fault, but keeping in view the statutory amendments, the quantum awarded is on the lower side. It is submitted that liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault was enshrined under Section 140 of the 1988 Act, contained in Chapter X ibid. It is further submitted that on similar lines, Section 163-A of the 1988 Act was inserted under Chapter XI thereof by enactment of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No.54 of 1994) w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Section 140, which formed part of Chapter X of the 1988 Act, was subsequently omitted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No.32 of 2019) w.e.f. 01.09.2019. Simultaneously, Chapter XI was substituted, whereby Section 163-A was substituted with Section 164, which provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in the case of grievous hurt, in the amount of Rs.2.5 lakh. It is further argued that the present case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in FAO-4301-2006, titled as Akaljit Kaur and others vs. Parveen Kumar and others, decided on 10.05.2024, wherein the claim under Section 163-A of the 1988 Act was treated as one under Section 164, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2023 ACJ 631

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3- insurance company vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal has been rightly granted. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.

7. A perusal of the award indicates that the claimant-appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act, seeking compensation on account of injuries and permanent disablement suffered in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 20.09.2003. At the time of the accident, the claimant-appellant was about 40/41 years of age. However, he failed to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Consequently, compensation was awarded under Section 140 of the 1988 Act. It is notable that a similar provision, based on the principle of no fault liability for payment of compensation on a structured formula basis, was incorporated into the statute book under Section 163-A of the 1988 Act by Central Act No.54 of 1994, w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Subsequently, the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019) w.e.f. 01.09.2019, Section 140 was omitted and Chapter XI of which Section 1