IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-597-2010 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Jaswinder Kaur and another ...Appellants Versus Daljit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Lalit Attri, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. The parents of the deceased Shamsher Singh @ Shera have filed the present appeal for enhancement. The Tribunal, vide award dated 14.05.2009, had awarded the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- to the appellants along with interest as compensation on account of death of their son which had occurred in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 26.12.2007.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the present appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “the 1988 Act”), for grant of compensation on account of death of their son. The Tribunal, in the said case under issue No.1, had observed that it had sufficiently been proved on record that Shamsher Singh had died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 26.12.2007 with the offending bus bearing registration No.PB02Y-9976 which was being driven by respondent No.3-Jasbir Singh at the relevant time. It is further observed that since the claim petition had been filed under Section 163-A of the 1988 Act, thus, the claimants/appellants were not required to prove the fact that the driver of the offending bus was negligent. The Tribunal held the appellants entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- and awarded the same along with interest and further directed the Insurance Company i.e., National Insurance Company to pay the said amount.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, the claim petition had been filed under Section 163-A of the 1988 Act and the factum with respect to the accident having taken place with the offending bus which was insured by the National Insurance Company had been proved before the Tribunal. 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 1988 Act, which provision had been incorporated by the Act 32 of 2019. It is submitted that in view of the same, the said amount be paid along with interest to the claimants from the date of the application till the date of the actual payment. It is submitted that the present case be treated as a case under Section 164 of the 1988 Act as amended.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company has submitted that in the present case, the accident had taken place on 26.12.2007 whereas the amendment increasing the amount to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- was brought about in the year 2019 and thus, the benefit of the said amendment cannot be given to the present appellants.

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

6. This Court in case bearing No.FAO-247-1991 titled as “Sushma Devi and others Vs. Tarlochan Singh and others” decided on 03.09.2024 while considering the case of no fault liability had, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Murti and others (Supra), directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual payment. Relevant portion of the said judgment passed in the case of Sushma Devi and others (Supra) is reproduce