FAO No.3536 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3536 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 11.05.2011 Daljit Singh son of Kunan Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Jaswant Singh son of Sunder Singh and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against an award of Rs.2 lacs awarded to parents for the death of a person, who was riding a motor cycle. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the accident was said to have taken place when the motor-cyclist dashed against a stationary truck, which had been parked at the kucha portion of the road and the vehicle was said to have been parked with its indicators blinking but there was a dust storm and driver of the motor cycle without properly minding the stationary vehicle, dashed against the vehicle at the rear side. There was no negligence at all on the part of the driver and therefore, the assessment of compensation for death at Rs.2 lacs is erroneous and if at all, the compensation could have been assessed only on no fault basis under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. In a case where the vehicle, which the deceased was driving, FAO No.3536 of 2011 (O&M) -2- had admittedly a collision with yet another vehicle, there was always a scope for a claim to be processed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The power of the Court to apply Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in a case where an application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi 2011 (2) SCC 240. 3. I would, therefore, treat the claim as one emanating under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in which the assessment of compensation at Rs.2 lacs for parents would not be seen to be high. The amount assessed was even less than what the Schedule II admits of. I do not find any scope for interference with the award for a further reduction. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 11, 2011 Pankaj*