Chander Bhan v. Charan Singh And Others

     

    

!"

#$%$!&'

!( )* + ,-  
 

 .%/


  '

01 2/ 2 2  2      

  





    

   
!

"

#### 2  2

/

$

%    

    &            '( )* '))(     $((  +  $,--&"   &  


!%& .&/ 0%& 01!

  

2''

* '))'  !   

  +3 4*$4-)$, %"

 ! !5  & - 6)

!

 +

37!

  $  "  " 8!

/

1 

5 

   

 %9 8

    9 &"  $5   

  8&   

  :

   .   3  6,,;)'  

 '<,;66<;6)=    


:

   

    ! ;!



= .!

  %& ! 

  
 



    

   

   !"#$$ %             &    

   

 



   ' 

"#$  ()    *&  ' '    +, -    '&'"#$$ .  / 2222  1

21   2 =

The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that though the learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of appellant-claimant but dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claim petition was filed after a long gap. Further on the ground that there was a gap between the medical treatment and the date of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that once the accident is proved, the Tribunal ought to award the compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant.

*

      
!

" ! "   "&! (         

<

 

"   

  



01 

2 

  

 

  23  *) ' 

   & 3     ' 2

     

  4 2  3  5  '

 1*               '  67  $0    $%

5     

' 2   '*    2  '  2       5   23         

 8)'



 

  23     2& *    2&'

  '



&

 7

 23  9 7 '*$.: ;<    '

 37  =  ;

    %! % %  &    5      

 



%% % %    =;

&     '& & '#  

; 2   

    &&   #  

;   &'=;

'

  ' ''

3

 

;

 3*$ : =

        =

'&      ' ;

  &    ' 0% %!0% %2   '



      '&   =

''

   '&   '%% % %  0% %4    '

2 7  =

'  * & 

    .0% %3    '

  &  ';

 3*: $  5=

$0   >

3 '67$.&

      2

'

  ?  = 2   7 * & 

 

 3 &'7

3 '67$.2 2

              '

    '         *'

2  1  :    23$8     ) & 3* 

  '

 7



 3 '

  ' *  * 

2 3

     



 

 2  

   5       

  %% % % @ 3*  &  &    

'   2  88% .   &3 

&

     %% % %    2*    

'    

  2

'

 3  2 2  23 2  '2

7      

'  &      2 '1*    23         3    

' &  

 

3    

3 2 7   

 32

   & 

' &   23

        3        

' &      2 '9  ' 

 

3

 2*    

 

 2  &   5   23  & 

  

/ -

     %&   3 $   

&  "!   5 

&"

  4

    



5   9  45 &  !    

&  $(6   +  $,--&  !%& 

 

 "

$(6  +  $,--substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act.

9.

The case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as "Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others." wherein the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164  +  $,--/ 6' ')$,

)$ )= ')''1&" "

5 ! 4>& Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] herein it was held that Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 / 6'

')$,

)$ )= ')''1provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakh. $)

  &   $(= +  $,--8 & 

&" ! 
 $$ $(=

  "! !

 !   *

8    * 8  $$ .


 in FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as "Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others" held as under:-


  

    
 

     

 !"#$%&' 

 

      

                   

   


            ! "      #!

"
# $ (")*+,-*

. 

)  /00

) %  #&'!#'#%  ( )        % *          %    



   

+  %               ,

    

             

       "

    -          .

 %  *         

             

    +         %   %     $              

  +   +   

 

    

   '( )* '))(        

        



    !" # 

$%  & '

   ( #         ) * #

+  1 31    
 


 

) ! 4

! 0 # 0 






,

   ,

    -./     



     



 

    0

 % 1  +

        

  

  

 1 

 

 



   1   ,

           "         

 +



1  1 1         

  

 



 

    "  

 ,

 ! 2     +

                  

 &# 3

  

 

   



  

  

     $   

      

2  2 

 

!( )* + ,-   ?    @ 8; 8 8   @ &  A