Abhishek Rampal vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
247 Date of decision : 03.11.2026
247(1) FAO No.4429 of 2004 (O&M)
ANJU @ RANJU …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...RESPONDENTS
247(2) FAO No.4430 of 2004 (O&M)
SHANTI DEVI AND OTHERS …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...RESPONDENTS
247(3) FAO No.4431 of 2004 (O&M)
SHANTI DEVI …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...RESPONDENTS
247(4) FAO No.4432 of 2004 (O&M)
MISS RITIKA RAMPAL …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...RESPONDENTS
247(5) FAO No.4433 of 2004 (O&M)
MASTER ABHISHEK RAMPAL …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate
for appellants.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
*
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -2-
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present appeals have been preferred by appellants-claimants
being aggrieved by common impugned award dated 20.03.2004 passed by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as
‘ Tribunal ’), whereby their claim petitions seeking compensation on account
of death of Dr. Rajiv Rampal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ deceased ’) and
injuries suffered by them in motor vehicular accident dated 09.03.1997, were
dismissed. Gist of appeals being decided is as under:-
Sr. Case title before the MACT Case
No. MACT No. / Appeal
No.
Claim
pertains
to/claim by
Compensation
awarded by
the Tribunal
1. Anju Vs. The New
India Assurance
Company Limited
MACT
No.127 of
1997/FAO
No.4429 of
2004
Compensation
for injuries
suffered by
her.
Dismissed
Dismissed
3. Shanti Devi and Ors.
Vs. The New India
Assurance Company
Limited
MACT
No.128 of
1997/FAO
No.4430 of
2004
Compensation
for death of
Dr. Rajiv
Rampal by
wife and
children (2).
MACT
No.129 of
1997/FAO
No.4431 of
2004
Compensation
for injuries
suffered by
him.
Dismissed
3. Shanti Devi Vs. The
New India Assurance
Company Limited
4. Ritika Rampal Vs.
The New India
Assurance Company
Limited
MACT
No.123 of
1997/FAO
No.4432 of
2004
Compensation
for injuries
suffered by
him.
Dismissed
5. Master Abhishek
Rampal Vs. The New
India Assurance
Company Limited
MACT
No.126 of
1997/FAO
No.4433 of
2004
Compensation
for injuries
suffered by
her.
Dismissed
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -3-
2. Learned Tribunal had dismissed claim petitions preferred by
appellants-claimants after concluding that accident was an ‘Act of God’ and
appellants-claimants had failed to prove negligence on the part of any other
vehicle in present case.
3. It was the case of appellants-claimants that they being member
of the same family were travelling in car being driven by deceased-Dr. Rajiv
Rampal. That accident had taken place near Lakkar Mandi, Dalhousie when
deceased was driving the car at high speed, rashly and negligently. It was
asserted that a fight had ensued between deceased and his wife Shanti Devi,
and snow was also falling at the time of accident. Deceased was requested to
park the vehicle, however, he continued to drive the car and in the
meanwhile huge bulk of ice had fallen on their car, resulting into accident
and death of Dr. Rajiv Rampal and grievous injuries to other occupants of
car i.e. appellants-claimants. The facts so stated by appellants-claimants in
their respective claim petitions were reiterated by injured-claimant-Anju
Bala who appeared as AW5 and injured-claimant-Shanti Devi who appeared
as AW6. DDR entry regarding the accident was duly placed on record as
Ex.R1.
4. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration evidence of
AW5, AW6 as well as assertions made while lodging DDR, had concluded
that present is a case where glacier/ice bulk had fallen on the car of
appellants-claimants, therefore, the car was pushed down in a deep gorge
resulting into death of deceased-Dr. Rajiv Rampal, who was driving the car
as well as injuries to other occupants i.e. appellants-claimants. It was held
that since it was an ‘Act of God’, therefore, appellants-claimants had failed
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -4-
to prove negligence on the part of driver of the car and accordingly, claim
petitions against Insurance Company of the car were dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has argued that both
AW5 as well as AW6 had reiterated the manner of occurrence as was stated
by appellants-claimants in their claim petitions and had clearly stated that it
was deceased-Dr. Rajiv Rampal who was driving the car rashly and
negligently and despite warnings by AW6, he instead of parking the car
continued to drive the car in rash and negligent manner and therefore car
owner and Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. However,
perusal of award goes to show that learned Tribunal had rightly appreciated
the evidence of AW5 and AW6 who were interested witnesses and had
rightly concluded that falling of glacier cannot be held to be an act of
negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle or any other vehicle as
the said car alone was involved in the accident.
6. Faced with the conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal, learned
counsel for appellants-claimants has argued that even if it is held that falling
of glacier on the car was an ‘Act of God’ and not result of rash and negligent
driving attributable to any person, even then use of car in the accident is
proved and learned Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for no fault
liability. He has further argued that with changed circumstances and in view
of amendment in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ 1988
Act ’), whereby amended Section 164 of 1988 Act has been substituted,
appellants-claimants shall be entitled to compensation under no fault
liability.
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -5-
7. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has,
however, opposed the appeals by asserting that the finding of learned
Tribunal is as per law and no negligence on the part of any vehicle could be
proved by appellants-claimants, therefore, present appeals are also liable to
be dismissed.
8. The first question which requires to be decided in present
appeals is whether appellants-claimants are entitled to compensation for no
fault liability as the accident had taken place on account of use of car
bearing registration No.PID 3086. Testimony of both AW5 and AW6 as well
as contents of DDR go to show that deceased as well as appellants-claimants
were travelling in said car bearing registration No.PID 3086. In these
circumstances, it is clearly made out that when accident had occurred on
account of avalanche i.e. breaking of glacier upon the car, deceased as well
as appellants-claimants were occupying the same. Once it is proved that
deceased and appellants-claimants were travelling in the car when they had
met with an accident which may be an ‘Act of God’, the use of motor
vehicle also stands proved so as to invoke no fault liability for payment of
compensation. No fault liability shall include even ‘Act of God’. Therefore,
in present case, even though the accident had taken place on account of ‘Act
of God’ i.e. falling of glacier/snow on the vehicle in which deceased and
appellants-claimants were travelling, they shall be entitled to compensation
under no fault liability as death, and injuries had occurred on account of use
of motor vehicle bearing registration No.PID 3086 which was duly insured
with respondent-Insurance Company.
9. The second question which arises in present case is whether
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -6-
appellants-claimants are entitled to compensation under newly enacted
Section 164 of 1988 Act which has come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022 or not.
Prior to amendment in 1988 Act in 2019, no fault liability as well as fault
liability were covered by provisions of Sections 140, 163A, and 166 of 1988
Act. Under Section 140 of 1988 Act, compensation under no fault liability
was payable irrespective of financial status or any other reasons which were
incumbent to be proved either under Section 163A or Section 166 of 1988
Act. Compensation for no fault liability under Section 140 of 1988 Act was
payable once it was proved that the accident was on account of use of motor
vehicle. Similarly, under Section 163A of 1988 Act, the principle of no fault
liability was invoked by Legislature for awarding compensation by way of
structured formula as given in Schedule II of the 1988 Act. However,
invocation of Section 163A of 1988 Act was subject to eligibility conditions
as stated in Section 163A of 1988 Act which stood omitted by 2019 Act. In
order to invoke Section 163A of 1988 Act, it was incumbent upon a claimant
to show his entitlement by pleading that he was not earning more than
Rs.40,000/- per annum as remedy under Section 163A of 1988 Act was only
available to claimant whose income was Rs.40,000/- per annum or less than
Rs.40,000/- per annum and claimant having income more than Rs.40,000/-
was not entitled to invoke Section 163A of 1988 Act. Hence, no fault
liability under Section 163A of 1988 Act had limited scope and was
available only to eligible claimants. The fault liability was covered under
Section 166 of 1988 Act which was dependent upon showing rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by a third party.
10. However, with amendment of 1988 Act w.e.f. 01.04.2022, the
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -7-
manner in which compensation is payable to a victim has undergone drastic
change. Instead of having three compartments i.e. two for ‘no fault liability’
and one for ‘fault liability’, the Legislature has simplified payment of
compensation to a victim of road accident by dividing into two
compartments – first in case use of vehicle is shown which is irrespective of
any fault of said vehicle and second on account of fault liability of offending
vehicle.
11. In present case as held above, provisions of Section 166 of 1988
Act would not be applicable as learned Tribunal had rightly held that
appellants-claimants had failed to prove fault on the part of driver while
driving car and accident had taken place on account of sudden fall of snow
over the car. Present is a case, which is covered by principles of no fault
liability as deceased and appellants-claimants were travelling in the car
involved in the accident.
12. The next question which is required to be considered is whether
a petition under Section 166 of 1988 Act can be converted to a petition under
Section 164 of 1988 Act. Prior to amendment, the view taken by the Courts
was that if a petition under Section 163A of 1988 Act has been preferred the
same cannot be easily converted to be one under Section 166 of 1988 Act.
Similarly, if if a petition has been preferred under Section 166 of 1988 Act,
same cannot be easily converted to petition under Section 163A of 1988 Act,
unless so permitted by the Court. There was no automatic conversion
available from Section 163A to 166 of 1988 Act or from 166 to 163A of
1988 Act. However, compensation under Section 140 was payable
irrespective of failure or success on the part of claimants to prove fault on
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -8-
the part of offending vehicle.
13. With amendment of 1988 Act in the year 2019, it is clearly
made out that provisions of Section 140 as well as that of Section 163 of
1988 Act have been taken away and both the provisions after clubbing
together have been enacted by way of Section 164 of 1988 Act, whereby
structured formula as well as eligibility to invoke ‘no fault liability’ as
provided under Section 163A of 1988 Act were done away.
14. Therefore, with amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2022, the intent of
Legislature is clear that in all cases where a claimant or a victim fails to
prove fault on the part of defending vehicle but succeeds in proving use of
motor vehicle, he would be entitled to invoke provisions of Section 164 of
1988 Act to claim compensation under no fault liability. Therefore, with
amendment even if a petition under Section 166 of 1988 Act fails, the
provisions of Section 164 of 1988 Act would come in play and
compensation would be payable under no-fault liability irrespective of fact
that whether the petition was filed under 164 of 1988 Act or not or whether
any application to convert the petition from under Section 166 to 164 of
1988 Act has been preferred or not. The invocation of Section 164 would
automatically come in operation on failure of victim to prove rash and
negligent driving on the part of offending vehicle but by showing
involvement of offending vehicle in the accident.
15. Therefore, in present case provisions of Section 164 of 1988
Act would be operational upon concluding that injuries as well as death was
caused on account of use of motor vehicle. The next question which arises in
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -9-
present case is whether provisions of Section 164 of 1988 Act which have
come in operation w.e.f. 01.04.2022 can be used to invoke no fault liability
in the accident which had occurred way back in year 1997 especially when
the provisions of Section 164 of 1988 Act have been made effective w.e.f.
from 01.04.2022.
16. The above noted issue is not res integra. Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Roopa Vs. The Manager, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd.
and Anr. , Civil Appeal No.6797 of 2026 decided on 27.04.2026; The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Halder , 2025 ACJ 244; and K.R.
Jagadish and Anr. Vs. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr. ,
2025 ACJ 188 has dealt this very issue and has held that since amendment in
Section 164 of 1988 Act is procedural in nature therefore, it is applicable
retrospectively and compensation in cases where the accident had taken
place prior to 01.04.2022 shall be payable in all such cases despite
amendment w.e.f. from 01.04.2022.
17. Accordingly, in present case compensation is payable under
Section 164 of 1988 Act in view of changed circumstances i.e. amendment
in 1988 Act.
18. As far as appeal ( FAO No.4430 of 2004 ) which has been
preferred by appellants-claimants on account of death of deceased-Dr. Rajiv
Rampal is concerned, same has been opposed by learned counsel for
respondent-Insurance Company on the ground that since deceased was
owner of the car involved in the accident and he himself was driving the car
at the time of accident, therefore being owner he is not covered by term
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -10-
‘third party’ and appellants-claimants are not entitled to any compensation
on account of death of deceased unless covered by contractual obligation
under the contract of insurance. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurance
Company has further drawn my attention to the Insurance Policy (Ex.R2),
wherein premium was only paid to cover the paid driver and no premium for
covering damage suffered by owner of the vehicle was paid. Therefore,
learned Tribunal noting this fact had concluded that respondent-Insurance
Company is not liable to pay compensation on account of death of deceased-
owner, namely Dr. Rajiv Rampal.
19. In view of above noted factual aspect of the case, this Court has
no option except to agree with the contention raised on behalf of respondent-
Insurance Company as well as conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal that no
compensation is payable to appellants-claimants on account of death of
deceased-Dr. Rajiv Rampal as he was owner who was driving the ill-fated
vehicle. Accordingly FAO No.4430 of 2004 is dismissed even after treating
the same under Section 164 of 1988 Act.
20. As far as injured-appellants-claimants in appeals ( FAO
No.4429 of 2004; FAO No.4431 of 2004, FAO No.4432 of 2004 and FAO
No.4433 of 2004 ) are concerned, they have have suffered grievous injuries
in the accident, therefore, they are entitled to lumpsum compensation of
Rs . 2,50,000 /- each under Section 164 of 1988 Act. Appellants-claimants had
suffered following injuries:-
Sr. Name of appellant- Nature of injuries
No. claimant
1. Anju @ Ranju Multiple injuries on head.
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.4429 of 2004
(O&M) & connected cases -11-
2. Shanti Devi Multiple fractures of backbone
vertebrates, pelvis and head
injuries.
3. Ritika Rampal Multiple injuries on right
femur, left tibia and fibula,
face inversion of right foot
plastered upto chest and
shortening of leg.
4. Master Abhishek Multiple injuries on head and
Rampal dis-figuration of face.
The compensation shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization as was awarded by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled K.R. Jagadish and Anr. Vs. M/s.
National Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr. (supra) .
21. Accordingly, appeals ( FAO No.4429 of 2004; FAO No.4431 of
2004, FAO No.4432 of 2004 and FAO No.4433 of 2004 ) are allowed in
above terms.
22. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Photocopy of
this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
JUDGE
03.11.2026
Sunil Chander
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.04 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document