Renu Bala And Others v. Savita Thaper And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 22.12.2025 RENU BALA AND ORS .... Appellants

VERSUS

SAVITA THAPER AND ANR .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants states that he does not press the present appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and seeks enhancement of compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only.

2.

Ordered accordingly.

3.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants challenging the award dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby only an amount of ₹50,000 had been awarded as compensation under no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 4.

The claim petition in the present case was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as such there would be no

-2question of future prospects.

5.

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2023 ACJ 631] has contended that the amount of ₹50,000 awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Learned counsel would further contend that drawing parity from the aforesaid judgment, the claimant-appellants would also be entitled to at least ₹5,00,000 as compensation.

6.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-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 had already been awarded as compensation and there is no scope of any enhancement. 7.

Heard.

8.

Vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 32 of 2019 Chapter X stands omitted and substituted by Chapter XI. Section 163-A falls in Chapter XI of the unamended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the same has now been replaced by Section 164 and in view thereof, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti (supra) would be fully applicable in the present case.

9.

The 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

-3substituted of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.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 Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. However, if the amount of Rs.50,000 which has been awarded by the High Court has already been paid over, the balance (or the entirety of Rs.5,00,000/- if no amount has been paid) shall be paid over to the appellants by 30 November 2022."

10.

In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed off and the amount of compensation is enhanced to ₹5,00,000. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. The amount shall be apportioned between the claimant-appellants as directed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

22.12.2025 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE:

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No