Surjit Kaur vs Yashpal Singh

FAO-4223-2001 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
208
FAO-4223-2001 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.08.2026
SURJIT KAUR AND OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
YASHPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Divya Godara, Advocate for the appellants.
LRs of respondent No.1 proceeded ex parte
vide order dated 14.08.2026.
Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana
for respondents No.2 and 3.
Notice to respondents No.4 and 5 dispensed with.
Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.6.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. A perusal of the Award shows that the claim petition filed by the
claimants was dismissed and no compensation has been awarded to them.
However, respondent No.6- Insurance Company is already represented by its
counsel and there is thus no necessity to issue notice to respondents No.4 and 5
and issuance of notice to them is dispensed with.
2. This appeal has been instituted by claimants/appellants against the
Award dated 2.2.2000 passed in MACT Case No.32 of 1995/1996 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa ( for short “Tribunal” ) vide which the claim
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4223-2001 (O&M)

- 2 -

petition filed by the claimants under Sections 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
( hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ ) for grant of compensation on account of death
of Mukhtiar Singh in a motor vehicular accident has been dismissed.
3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal:-
1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent
driving of Yashpal Singh respondent No.1 driver of Bus
No.HR08/7793?OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so how
much and from whom?OPP
3. Whether the petitions are bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder
of parties?OPR
4. Whether the petitions are not maintainable in the present
form?OPR
5. Whether the driver of truck No.HR24A/9551 did not hold a
valid driving licence if so its effect?
6. Relief.
4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the
file, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition while holding under
issue No.1 that claimants have failed to prove that the accident in question had
taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent
No.1 while driving the offending bus bearing No.HR-08-7793 and issue No.1 was
decided against the claimants. Under Issue No.2, it was held that claimants are not
entitled to any compensation. Issue No.3 was decided against the respondents,
while under issue No.4 it was held that the petition is not maintainable. Under
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4223-2001 (O&M)

- 3 -

issue No.5 it was held that the driver of the truck was holding a valid and effective
driving licence at the time of accident and issue No.5 was decided against the
insurance company. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the involvement of the
bus and the truck in the accident is not in dispute and the deceased was driving the
truck which met with the accident and it resulted in his death and as such, it is
established that deceased died on account of use of truck bearing
No.HR24A/9551, which was owned by respondent No.5 and insured with
respondent No.6. Learned Tribunal has thus committed a grave error while
granting no compensation to the claimants even under “no fault liability”. Learned
counsel next argued that initially the claim petition was filed under Sections 166
of the Act and now Section 164 has been inserted in place of Section 163-A in the
Motor Vehicles Act, according to which, the claimants are entitled to the
compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of a person under
‘no fault liability’. Learned counsel further contended that Hon’ble Supreme Court
in 2023 ACJ 631 Ram Murti & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board has
retrospectively applied the provision contained in Section 164 of the Act and has
granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to claimants in the case of death
which had taken place prior to Motor Vehicles (Amendment) vide Act No.32 of
2019 and the claimants too are thus entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that
the judgment in Ram Murti’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4223-2001 (O&M)

- 4 -

and the award in question is well reasoned and justified and no interference in the
same is thus called for.
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti’s case (supra) has held as
under:-
“7. The provisions of Section 140 which formed a part of Chapter 10 of
the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 were omitted by Act 32 of 2019.
Simultaneously, Chapter 11 was substituted of which Section 164
provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the sum of
Rs.5,00,000 and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2,50,000/-.” “8. We
are inclined to give the appellants the benefit of the beneficial provisions
which have been enacted by Parliament. Hence, in modification of the
order of the High Court, we direct that the appellants shall be entitled to
an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. However, if the amount of
Rs.50,000 which has been awarded by the High Court has already been
paid over, the balance (or the entirety of Rs.5,00,000/- if no amount has
been paid) shall be paid over to the appellants by 30 November 2022.”
10. In Ram Murti’s case (supra), the petition was filed under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which had been dismissed and
the accident had taken place on 03.01.1996 when Section 164 of Act had
not come into existence. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial provision and applied the beneficial
provision of Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act retrospectively in cases of
“no-fault liability” under Section 163-A and awarded a lump sum
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimant.
11. In the present case, the accident took place on 11.02.1995,
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4223-2001 (O&M)

- 5 -

resulting in the death of Mukhtiar Singh on account of use of truck bearing
No.HR-24A-9551 and bus No.HR-08-7793 owned by respondents No.2 and
3. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act which was
dismissed. Now, the amendment in Motor Vehicles Act has come into force
w.e.f. 01.04.2022, vide which Section 163-A of the Act has been repealed
and replaced by Section 164 of the Act. However, before this amendment
came into force, the Government by way of Motor Vehicle (Amendment)
Act, 2019, vide Act No.32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.09.2019 had replaced Section
163-A of the Act with Section 164 and as such, Section 164 had infact come
into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, under which claimants are held entitled to
compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, in view of law
laid down in Ram Murti’s case (supra) , it is held that the claimants are
also entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of
Mukhtiar Singh.
12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is
partly allowed and the appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.
5,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date when
Section 164 of the Act came into force i.e. 01.09.2019, till realization,
payable by respondents No.2 and 3 (owners of bus No.HR-08-7793) and
respondents No.5 and 6 (owner and insurer truck No.HR24A-9551) jointly
and severally. Out of the aforesaid compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/-
each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 4 while
balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 along with proportionate interest.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4223-2001 (O&M)

- 6 -

13. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of this
judgment to the respondents/Insurance Companies in terms of directions
issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of
2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of
India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Companies shall
comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.
14. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
31.08.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment