Arvind Anand & Ors. vs Mohtreen & Ors.

Parmod Goyal, J.

Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants [wife, children (02) and mother] being aggrieved by dismissal of their claim petition preferred under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘1988 Act’) seeking compensation on account of death of Sushil Anand (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in motor vehicular accident dated 29.03.2003 allegedly caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving truck bearing registration No.HR374605 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’).

The petition was preferred under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1988 Act’).

Appellants-claimants, in their claim petition had asserted that on 29.03.2003 at about 08:30 p.m. deceased along with Mohinder @ Bhupinder were coming from Vikas Nagar in car bearing registration No.DL-3CJ-6167 driven by deceased at normal speed on left side of the road. That when they reached village Kalsia at about 09:10 p.m., offending vehicle driven by respondent-driver in rash and negligent manner at very high speed without blowing any horn came from opposite side without lights and struck against the car which was being driven by deceased. Due to the impact, the car of deceased got damaged and the deceased including other occupants sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, deceased was declared brought dead in hospital. FIR No.82 dated 29.03.2003 under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of IPC was registered against respondent-driver.

Driver and owner of offending truck had failed to appear despite service. Respondent No.5-owner of car as well as Insurance Company had denied the fault of car and stated accident to be result of sole negligence of driver of truck. They however, had challenged the petition on the ground of its maintainability.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

In present case, appellants-claimants have duly examined Mohinder @ Bhupinder as PW2. PW2 had duly asserted that he was accompanying deceased on 29.03.2003 when their car driven by deceased had met with an accident. He asserted that at about 08:30 p.m., he along with deceased had started from Vikas Nagar to Yamuna Nagar in Tata Estate car bearing registration No.DL-3CJ-6167, which was being driven by deceased. PW2 also asserted that when they reached at Behat, brother of deceased-Sushil Anand, namely Sanjay Anand also joined them. That at about 09:15 p.m., when they reached near village Kalsia, a truck bearing registration No.HR-37-4605 came from opposite side without having its driver side light on and all of a sudden took turn towards wrong side and had struck against their car. The truck was being driven by Mohtreen (respondent No.1) in rash and negligent manner. All the occupiers of the car had sustained injuries and they were taken to Bajoria Hospital by Sanjay Anand, brother of deceased. Sushil Anand was declared dead and PW2 was provided first aid. PW2 further asserted that it was Sanjay Anand, brother of deceased, who had lodged the FIR and that Sushil Anand was driving the car on correct left side of the road at normal speed. That the driver of truck had ran away after causing the accident by leaving the truck at the spot. PW2 was put to detailed cross-examination, however, nothing could be shown to impeach his assertions as regards to presence or as regards to manner of accident stated by him. Manner of accident stated by PW2 is in line with contents of FIR, which was lodged by brother of deceased on 29.03.2003 itself.

The evidence of PW2 had gone unrebutted and unchallenged as neither driver nor owner of the offending truck had contested the claim petition. They were proceeded ex parte. Even the owner of car in which deceased was driving had found fault with the truck in causing the accident, thereby admitting use of car as well as truck in the accident dated 29.03.2003. Mechanical report of car No.DL-3CJ-6167 showing damage to car in which deceased was travelling was duly placed on record as Ex.P4 along with report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. against respondent-driver as Ex.P5. None of the respondents had lead any evidence to challenge or rebut evidence lead by appellants-claimants. Rather, appellants-claimants had examined official from respondent-Insurance Company, who duly accepted that insurance of car Ex.P1 was issued by Insurance Company and was valid from 03.11.2002 to 02.11.2003 and premium was duly paid to cover driver of the car.

From the evidence lead in present case, it is, therefore, proved beyond doubt that accident dated 29.03.2003 was result of collision between car and truck. Though the evidence shows that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck, however, since claim petition was filed under Section 163 of 1988 Act, therefore, finding of rash and negligent driving is not required. Only use of vehicles involved in the accident is required to be proved. It is, therefore, held that appellants-claimants has succeeded in proving accident dated 29.03.2003 on account of use of car bearing registration No.DL-3CJ-6167 and truck bearing registration No.HR-37-4605.

Learned Tribunal had concluded that income of deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. It was further held that since under Section 163-A of 1988 Act, only legal representatives of deceased, who had income equal or less than Rs.40,000/- per annum alone, could have approached the learned Tribunal under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, petition under Section 163-A was held not maintainable and accordingly, said claim petition was dismissed.

10 Appellant(s)-claimant(s) has challenged the finding of learned Tribunal. The sole ground raised by learned counsel for appellant(s)-claimant(s) is that in view of amendment in Section 164 of 1988 Act, they are entitled to consolidated compensation under Section 164 of 1988 Act as provision of Section 163-A of 1988 Act has been omitted and replaced by Section 164 of 1988 Act setting fixed no-fault payout/compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) for death and Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousands only) for injuries irrespective of income limit of Rs.40,000/-.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has argued that rights of appellant(s)-claimant(s) had crystallized on the date of accident and provisions applicable on date of accident only need to be taken into consideration. It is further submitted that subsequent developments would not alter the rights and liabilities of the parties.

Facts are not in dispute in present case. Accident had taken place on 29.03.2003. Claim petition was filed under Section 163A of 1988 Act. It is also not in dispute that w.e.f. 01.04.2022, amended Section 164 of 1988 Act came into force, whereby a fix amount of Rs.5,00,000/-for no fault liability for death and Rs.2,50,000/- for injuries, was made effective. The only question which requires adjudication is whether the amended Section 164 of 1988 Act would be applicable as to grant compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- or Rs.2,50,000/-in case wherein accident had taken place prior to 01.04.2022.

Prior to amendment in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in year 2019, no fault liability was payable under Section 140 as well as under Section 163-A. Under Section 140, lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of death was payable if the use of vehicle is proved whereas under Section 163- A, no fault liability was available to specific category of appellants-claimants where the income of deceased was less than Rs.40,000/- per annum and the compensation was payable as per IInd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in a structured manner. However, vide amendment in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in year 2019, the provisions of no fault liability under Section 140 and payment of compensation under Section 163-A on the basis of IInd Schedule, were done away, by omission of these provisions. Section 164 was substituted by way of said amendment and was made operational only w.e.f. 01.04.2022. With amendment in Section 164, no fault liability existing under Sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been done away and lumpsum amount has been provided under Section 164 for no fault. Legislature had intended to simplify payment of compensation for no fault liability.

Legislature has clearly intended to grant compensation to a person seeking compensation under no fault liability even if he fails to prove rash and negligent driving, but is able to show use of vehicle in the accident. Under Section 164, liability is no fault liability, rash and negligence on the part of offending vehicle is not required to be proved. Therefore, in all cases where rash and negligent driving is not proved, the no fault liability would be payable under the provisions of Section 164 with substitution of Section 164 w.e.f. 01.04.2022.

The next question which requires adjudication is whether Section 164 would be applicable from date of amendment i.e. 01.04.2022 or shall be applicable retrospectively even to the claim petitions where accident had taken place prior to 01.04.2022.

The above noted issue is not res integra. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roopa Vs. The Manager, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd. and Anr., Civil Appeal No.6797 of 2026 decided on 27.04.2026; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Halder, 2025 ACJ 244; and K.R. Jagadish and Anr. Vs. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr., 2025 ACJ 188 has dealt this very issue and has concluded that since 1988 Act is beneficial legislation and amendment under Section 164 is procedural in nature, therefore, the compensation as amended under Section 164 can be awarded to appellant(s)-claimant(s) who had filed their petition under Section 163-A in accident which had occurred prior to 01.04.2022. In view of authoritative pronouncement by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clearly made out that Section 164 of 1988 Act being procedural amendment would be retrospective in nature and appellant(s)-claimant(s) would be entitled to receive compensation amended therein.

Appeal is accordingly allowed. It is held that appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation under Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It shall be payable by all the respondents jointly and severally. The enhanced compensation shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization as was awarded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled K.R. Jagadish and Anr. Vs. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr. (supra). Liability to pay compensation shall be joint and several of all the respondents.

Learned counsel for respondent-insurance company has argued that interest be not awarded/curtailed on the amount so made payable. I do not find any merit in the contention made by respondent-insurance company in view of judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court and fact that provisions under Section 164 are retrospective in operation. Moreover, in the present case, since, the insurance policy is comprehensive insurance policy, covering driver of the vehicle, therefore, the insurance company is also liable under contract of insurance to pay compensation.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.