Sumitra Devi & Ors. v. Kamal Singh & Ors.

Present : Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the appellants. Service of respondent Nos.1 and 2 dispensed with vide order dated 16.11.2022. Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for respondent No.3. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) CM-20455-CII-2016

This is an application for condonation of delay of 684 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 684 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off. However, the claimant-appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. FAO-6004-2016

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant- appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar vide the impugned award dated 13.02.2014 in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the 1988 Act’). Yogesh Sharma 2025.01.29 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh FAO-6004-2016 (O&M) -2-

Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation : Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 2 3 4 Expenses upon transportation and last rites ₹15,000/- Compensation on account of loss of dependency ₹3,60,000/- Compensation on account of loss of love and affection to all the petitioners ₹75,000/- Total Compensation ₹4,50,000/- Interest

7.5% per annum

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the child in the present case, who unfortunately died in a motor vehicle accident, was 18 years of age at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would further contend that the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- awarded towards compensation is on the lower side. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2023 ACJ 631] to contend that the claimant-appellants would also be entitled to at least Rs.5,00,000/-.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that the judgment in the case of Ram Murti (supra) is not applicable in the present case and that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement. Yogesh Sharma 2025.01.29 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh FAO-6004-2016 (O&M) -3-

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the 1988 Act. Vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 32 of 2019 Chapter X stands omitted and substituted by Chapter XI. Section 163-A falls in Chapter X of the unamended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the same has now been replaced by Section 164 of the Act.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti (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 amount of ₹5,00,000/- and in the case of grievous hurt of ₹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 ₹5,00,000/- as compensation. However, if the amount of ₹50,000 which has been awarded by the High Court has already been paid over, the balance (or the entirety of ₹5,00,000/- if no amount has been paid) shall be paid over to the appellants by 30 November

2022.”