IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994 Date of Decision : March 10, 2009 Ram Murti and others ....Appellants Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 12.4.1994 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, whereby the application filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) was dismissed. However, their claim under Section 140 of the Act was granted and they were held entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of death of Ved Parkash in the accident. On 23.5.1991, Ved Parkash, along with Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh, Devinder Singh @ Hari, Balwant Singh and Gurmit Singh, was travelling in a Maruti van bearing registration No. PB-03A- 5792 from Dabwali to Bathinda. The van, which was owned by Ved F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994 -2- Parkash, was being driven by Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh. At about 4:30 P.M., a truck bearing No. PUR-3901 belonging to the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') being driven by Piara Singh-respondent, came from the opposite direction, as a result of which, there was a head on collision between the two vehicles. The Maruti van was completely smashed. Balwant Singh and Ved Parkash died at the spot. Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh and others were removed to the hospital. Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh also died later on. At the time of the accident, the truck belonging to the Board was carrying electric poles and electricity transformers. F.I.R. was registered against Piara Singh, driver at Police Station, Sangat on 23.5.1991 under Sections 279/327/304-A IPC. Three separate claim petitions were filed by the heirs of the deceased whereby they sought compensation as, according to them, the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. The claim petitions were opposed by the respondent-Board as well as by Piara Singh driver. According to them, Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh, driver of the Maruti van, was rash and negligent in driving as he was under the influence of alcohol at that time. Moreover, Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It was also pleaded that the driver of the Maruti van was trying to overtake a passenger bus. While doing so, F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994 -3- he lost control over the vehicle. Piara Singh driver tried to avoid the accident by taking the truck on to the Kacha portion on the left side of the road but as Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner, he was not in a position to control the movements of the van and, consequently, the accident took place. After going through the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues in the claim petition filed by the applicants: -- 1. Whether the death of Ved Parkash took place due to the rash and negligent act of driving of respondent No. 2, Piara Singh ? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to and from whom ? OPP. 3. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence, learned Tribunal held that the entire fault leading to the accident was of Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh, who was driving the Maruti van, whereas Piara Singh, truck driver, could not be blamed in any manner. In view of the said findings, learned Tribunal declined to grant any compensation to the appellants under Section 166 of the Act. However, they were granted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994 -4- Section 140 of the Act as the death of Ved Parkash was result of an accident. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the testimonies of Devinder Singh AW2 and Gurmit Singh AW3 to show that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by Piara Singh-respondent. However, a perusal of their testimonies would establish that the accident in question had not taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Piara Singh. In fact, it was Rajinder Kumar, driver of the Maruti van, who lost control of the vehicle, while overtaking the bus and in spite of fact that Piara Singh, driver took the truck on the Kacha portion of the left road side, the accident took place leading to the death of Ved Parkash and two others. Once such a conclusion is arrived at there is no scope for interference in the present appeal, in so far as the claim of the appellants as set up by them under Section 166 of the Act. Coming to the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants under no fault liability, it may be noticed that accident in question had taken place on 23.5.1991. Under Section 140 of the Act, as it stood at that time, an amount of Rs 25,000/- was required to be paid under no fault liability on account of death of a person in a motor vehicular accident. The said provision was amended in the year 1994, F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994 -5- as a result of which the amount of compensation, in respect of death of any person, was raised to as Rs. 50,000/-. In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Padamavathy , 1990 A.C.J. 751, a Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that the award for no fault liability in a vehicular accident which occurred prior to coming into force of 1988 Act should be in tune with the amount fixed by the 1988 Act and not under the earlier Act, i.e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This proposition of law was adopted by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Mosmi and another v. Ram Kumar and others, 1991 (2) Punjab Law Reporter 349. The gist of the aforementioned judgments is that the benefit of amended provisions must be extended to the claimants even if the accident had taken place before the amendment in the Statute. As in the year 1994, provisions of Section 140 of the Act have been amended so as to enable the Court to direct the payment of a fixed sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in respect of the death of any person, the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, therefore, needs to be accordingly, modified by granting a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants as compensation under no fault liability. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of holding appellant, namely, Smt. Ram Murti widow of Ved Parkash, entitled to receive an amount of Rs 50,000/- under no fault liability F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994 -6- clause of the Act. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is, accordingly, modified and enhanced from Rs 25,000/- to Rs 50,000/-. Smt. Ram Murti, shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the enhanced amount. Respondents No. 1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. No costs. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 10, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO