Section 164’s ₹5 lakh no-fault compensation applies retrospectively to pre-amendment motor-accident deaths.

Dogar Singh died on 2 January 1996 after colliding with truck No. HIB-2581, driven by respondent No. 2, Surinder Singh. His mother, Nasibo, and other relatives filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, held that Dogar Singh’s death was not caused by rash or negligent driving of the truck; rather, he had struck a stationary vehicle due to his own fault.

Nevertheless, the Tribunal awarded Nasibo ₹50,000 under the principle of no-fault liability and dismissed the claims of the deceased’s brothers and sisters on the ground that they were not dependants. The Tribunal also held the insurer liable to indemnify the vehicle owner.

In appeal, the appellants did not challenge the finding that the deceased was himself at fault. Counsel sought enhancement of the no-fault compensation to ₹5,00,000 under Section 164 of the Act, relying on Ram Murti v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2023 ACJ 631. The claim was ultimately pressed only on behalf of Nasibo, the deceased’s mother.

Whether compensation under the subsequently enacted Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could be applied to an accident that occurred on 2 January 1996, notwithstanding the absence of rash or negligent driving?

Whether Nasibo was entitled to enhancement of the no-fault compensation from ₹50,000 to ₹5,00,000, and if so, from what date and against whom?

Whether the Tribunal’s finding that Dogar Singh’s death resulted from his own act of colliding with the stationary truck required interference?

The Court applied the no-fault compensation framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It noted that Section 140 had been omitted and Section 163-A had been replaced by Section 164 through the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, with effect from 1 September 2019; Section 164 provides fixed compensation of ₹5,00,000 for death and ₹2,50,000 for grievous hurt, without proof of negligence.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Murti v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2023 ACJ 631, the Court held that the beneficial provisions of Section 164 could be applied retrospectively to pending no-fault claims arising from earlier accidents, including claims in which the accident occurred before Section 164 came into force.

The Court also accepted the principle that compensation under the no-fault regime is payable for death arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, even where negligence is not established.

The High Court did not disturb the Tribunal’s finding that Dogar Singh had himself collided with the stationary truck and that rash or negligent driving by respondent No. 2 was not proved.

However, it held that proof of negligence was unnecessary for entitlement under the no-fault liability regime. Since the death occurred on account of the use of the truck, the case fell within the beneficial scope of Section 164.

Following Ram Murti, where the Supreme Court granted ₹5,00,000 under the corresponding no-fault provision despite the accident having occurred before the statutory amendment, the Court extended the same benefit to Nasibo.

As ₹50,000 had already been awarded by the Tribunal, the Court treated ₹4,50,000 as the enhanced component. It limited interest on the enhanced amount to the period beginning from 1 September 2019, the date on which Section 164 was stated to have come into force.

Nasibo was held entitled to total compensation of ₹5,00,000 for the death of her son under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, instead of ₹50,000 awarded by the Tribunal.

The enhanced amount of ₹4,50,000 was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from 1 September 2019 until realization. The amount was made payable by the insurer and the owner jointly and severally.

The Tribunal’s finding regarding the deceased’s own fault and the dismissal of the claims of the other appellants were not disturbed.

The Registry was also directed to email an authenticated copy of the judgment to the concerned insurance company in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 534 of 2020, decided on 16 March 2021.