Chandigarh: It was snowing on March 9, 1997, when Dr Rajiv Rampal was driving his family near Lakkar Mandi in Dalhousie. According to the claimants’ statements before the tribunal, Dr Rampal had quarrelled with his wife, who asked him to park the car, but he continued driving at high speed.
A huge mass of ice then fell on the car, pushing it into a deep gorge. Dr Rampal died, while the other four occupants sustained grievous injuries.
Twenty-nine years later, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that victims of a motor accident can claim no-fault compensation even when the accident is caused by an “Act of God”. It is sufficient to establish that the death or injury resulted from the use of a motor vehicle.
In an order dated 3 November, Justice Parmod Goyal awarded Rs 2.5 lakh each to the four injured occupants, along with 6 percent annual interest from the dates they filed their claims. However, the court dismissed the claim arising from Dr Rampal’s death.
Why the tribunal rejected the claims
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, had dismissed all five claim petitions on 20 March, 2004, holding that the snowfall was an ‘Act of God’. It also found that negligence on the part of the car driver or any other vehicle had not been established. The car was the only vehicle involved in the accident.
The claimants challenged the decision before the High Court the same year, filing five appeals that were heard together.
The High Court agreed with the tribunal’s finding on negligence. It noted that the tribunal had correctly assessed the evidence of Anju Bala and Shanti Devi, who were interested witnesses. Consequently, a claim for compensation based on fault under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, could not succeed.
However, the court accepted the claimants’ alternative argument that compensation was payable under the no-fault liability provisions of the Act.
Even an ‘Act of God’ is covered
Advocate Sushil Saini, appearing for the claimants, argued that even if the accident was an Act of God, the use of the car had been established and compensation was therefore payable without proof of negligence.
Justice Goyal accepted the argument. The court noted that the deceased and the claimants were travelling in the car, registration number PID 3086, when the mass of ice fell on it. The use of a motor vehicle was therefore established.
“No-fault liability shall include even ‘Act of God’,” the order said.
The court held that even if a claim under Section 166 failed for want of proof of negligence, the claimants could still receive compensation under Section 164. This would apply irrespective of whether the original petition had specifically invoked Section 164 or whether an application had been made to convert it into a claim under that provision.
Also Read: Centre to meet on Nov 16 for Punjab and Haryana High Court 1,500-crore expansion plan
How the law changed
Before the 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, no-fault compensation was available under Sections 140 and 163A, while claims requiring proof of negligence were filed under Section 166.
Section 140 provided fixed compensation of Rs 50,000 in case of death and Rs 25,000 for permanent disablement, without requiring proof of fault.
Section 163A provided for compensation under a structured formula in the Act’s Second Schedule. However, it was available only to claimants whose annual income did not exceed Rs 40,000.
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, replaced these provisions with Section 164, which came into force on 1 April, 2022. The new provision removed the income ceiling and the requirement to establish negligence for no-fault compensation.
Although the Dalhousie accident took place in 1997, the High Court held that Section 164 could apply retrospectively. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roopa vs The Manager, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd (27 April, 2026), The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Urmila Halder, and K R Jagadish vs National Insurance Company Ltd, which held that the amendment was procedural in nature and could apply to earlier accidents.
The court also relied on K R Jagadish while awarding interest at 6 percent.
Why the death claim failed
While allowing compensation for the four injured occupants, the High Court dismissed the appeal seeking compensation for Dr Rampal’s death.
The appeal had been filed by his wife. The New India Assurance Company argued that Dr Rampal was the owner of the car and was driving it himself. He could therefore not be treated as a third party for the claim.
The insurer also pointed out that the insurance policy showed that a premium had been paid only to cover a paid driver. No additional premium had been paid to cover the owner of the vehicle.
Justice Goyal agreed with the insurer, holding that the court had no option but to dismiss the death claim, even while treating it as a claim under Section 164.
The four injured claimants
Anju, also referred to as Ranju, sustained multiple head injuries. Shanti Devi suffered multiple fractures involving her backbone, pelvis and head.
Ritika Rampal sustained injuries to her right femur, left tibia and fibula. Her right foot was plastered up to the chest, and she was left with a shortened leg.
Abhishek Rampal suffered multiple head injuries and facial disfigurement.
(Edited by Anupama Yadav)
Also Read: One signature, 120 cheque-bounce cases: HC allows Haryana woman to use common surety