Section 164 applies retrospectively, entitling claimants to ₹5 lakh for pre-amendment deaths.

Mukhtiar Singh died in a motor-vehicular accident on 11.02.1995 involving bus No. HR-08-7793 and truck No. HR-24A-9551.

The claimants instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of his death.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claimants failed to prove rash and negligent driving by the bus driver and were consequently not entitled to compensation; it also held that the truck driver possessed a valid driving licence.

In appeal, the claimants argued that, irrespective of negligence, compensation was payable on a no-fault basis under Section 164 of the Act, relying on Ram Murti v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2023 ACJ 631.

The Court considered Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims based on fault and negligence.

It applied the no-fault compensation framework under Section 164, which provides compensation of Rs.5,00,000 for death and Rs.2,50,000 for grievous hurt, after Section 163-A was replaced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, with effect from 01.09.2019.

Relying on Ram Murti v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2023 ACJ 631, the Court held that the beneficial provisions of the amended Act could be applied retrospectively in pending no-fault compensation matters, even where the accident had occurred before the amendment and the petition had originally been filed under Section 166.

The liability of the vehicle owners and insurer was imposed jointly and severally in respect of the use of the vehicles involved in the accident.

Although the Tribunal rejected the claim for failure to establish rash and negligent driving by the bus driver, the appellate Court focused on the undisputed involvement of the bus and truck and the deceased’s death arising from the use of the truck and bus.

Applying the beneficial principle recognised in Ram Murti, the Court held that the absence of proof of negligence did not defeat the claim for statutory no-fault compensation under Section 164.

It further held that Section 164 was applicable notwithstanding that the accident occurred in 1995, because the provision had been introduced with effect from 01.09.2019 and was required to receive beneficial and retrospective application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision.

On that basis, the Court modified the Tribunal’s dismissal and fixed compensation at Rs.5,00,000.

The claimants were held entitled to Rs.5,00,000 as compensation for Mukhtiar Singh’s death, with interest at 9% per annum from 01.09.2019, the date on which Section 164 was held to have come into force, until realisation.

The amount was made payable jointly and severally by respondents No.2 and 3, owners of the bus, and respondents No.5 and 6, the owner and insurer of the truck.

Claimants No.2 to 4 were each awarded Rs.50,000 with proportionate interest, and the balance was directed to be paid to claimant No.1 with proportionate interest.

The Registry was also directed to email the authenticated judgment to the concerned insurance companies in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. v. Union of India.