Rina And ORS. v. Rajesh Kumar And ORS.

FAO-2579-2010 Page 1 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2579-2010(O&M) Date of decision: 28.04.2026 Rina & Another ...Appellant(s) Vs.

Rajesh Kumar & Others

...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurasis Singh, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal') vide Award dated 04.04.2009 passed in MACT Case No.33 dated 01.03.2008 filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter "the Act"). The 4 claimants before the learned Tribunal were the parents and brothers of deceased Anil, who was between 20-25 years old at time of accident. Present appeal has been filed by the pro-forma respondents No.4 and 5 in the Claim Petition; who are the wife and minor daughter of deceased Anil. 2.

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the deceased Anil had died due to the injuries suffered by

FAO-2579-2010 Page 2 of 8 him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 18.01.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.HR-46-B-3142 (hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side. Compensation under the various heads has been awarded on the lower side. Multiplier of 17 has also been applied on the lower side. Interest has also been awarded on the lower side. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and compensation of Rs.10 lakh be awarded to the appellants.

4.

No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. 5.

In a Claim Petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation has to be paid as per the structured formula stipulated in the Second Schedule to the Act. In a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimants are only required to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question. Accordingly, all the evidence is

FAO-2579-2010 Page 3 of 8 led by the parties to only prove the involvement of the vehicle. Whereas, in a claim petition filed under section 166, evidence is to be led by the claimant to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent. Accordingly, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

, (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 70466, has categorically held that:- "Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 163A and 166 - Alternate remedy - Switching over to Section 166 after exercising one under section 163A - Not permissible - Remedy under the no fault liability prescribed under Section 163A is an independent and complete in itself - It is not an interim relief or temporary remedy subject to any other relief under the Act and cannot be clubbed or adjusted in the remedy to claim under section 166 - It is only the relief under section 144 which is interim in nature and is adjustable at the time of final decision of regular petition - The object and purpose of incorporating Section 163A was to provide a speedy remedy to the victims or their dependents but has been made final and absolute in itself.

XXX XXX XXX

35. Section 163A was introduced in the Act by way of a social security scheme. It is a code by itself. It appears from the Objects and Reasons of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 that after enactment of the 1988 Act several representations and suggestions were made from the State Governments, transport operators and members of public in relation to certain provisions thereof. Taking note of the observations made by the various Courts and the difficulties experienced in implementing the

FAO-2579-2010 Page 4 of 8 various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Government of India appointed a Review Committee. The Review Committee in its report made the following recommendations: "The 1988 Act provides for enhanced compensation for hit and run cases as well as for no fault liability cases. It also provides for payment of compensation on proof-of-fault basis to the extent of actual liability incurred which ultimately means an unlimited liability in accident cases. It is found that the determination of compensation takes a long time. According to information available, in Delhi alone there are 11214 claims pending before the Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunals, as on 31.3.1990.

Proposals have been made from time to time that the finalisation of compensation claims would be greatly facilitated to the advantage of the claimant, the vehicle owner as well as the Insurance Company if a system of structured compensation can be introduced. Under such a system of structured compensation that is payable for different clauses of cases depending upon the age of the deceased, the monthly income at the time of death, the earning potential in the case of the minor, loss of income on account of loss of limb etc., can be notified. The affected party can then have the option of either accepting the lump sum compensation as is notified in that scheme of structured compensation or of pursuing his claim through the normal channels.

The General Insurance Company with whom the matter was taken up, is agreeable in principle to a scheme of structured compensation for settlement of claims on "fault liability" in respect of third party liability under Chapter XI of M.V. Act, 1988. They have suggested that the claimants should first file their

FAO-2579-2010 Page 5 of 8 Claims with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and then the insurers may be allowed six months time to confirm their prima facie liability subject to the defences available under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After such confirmations of prima facie liability by the insurers the claimants should be required to exercise their option for conciliation under structured compensation formula within a stipulated time." The recommendations of the Review Committee and representations from public were placed before the Transport Development Council for seeking their views pursuant whereto several sections were amended. Section 163A was inserted in the Act to provide for payment of compensation in motor accident cases in accordance with the Second Schedule providing for the structured formula which may be amended by the Central Government from time to time.

XXX XXX XXX

41. Section 163A which has an overriding effect provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. Sub-section (1) of Section 163A contains nonobstante clause in terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer is liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of Section 163A is in pari materia with subsection (3) of Section 140 of the Act."

FAO-2579-2010 Page 6 of 8 6.

Perusal of record of the case shows that income of the deceased has been correctly taken as Rs.3000/- per month as a labourer. Deduction of 1/3rd has been correctly made. Multiplier of 17 has also been correctly applied; thereby granting total compensation of Rs.4,08,000/-. 7.

I find no error whatsoever in the compensation as calculated above by the learned Tribunal. The Claim Petition had been filed under Section 163-A of the Act; and amended Second Schedule of the Act had come into effect from 22.05.2018. Section 163 of the Act stood replaced by Section 164 vide Amendment with effect from 01.09.2019, as per which Second Schedule of the Act had been omitted. Reliance may be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Urmila Halder v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1250725; judgment of this Court in "National Insurance Company Limited through Assistant Manager Vs. Kamlesh Kumari & Others" FAO-705-2003 decided on 05.03.2020; and judgment of Gauhati High Court in "National Insurance Company Limited v. Bijaya Bhuyan & Others" reported in (2018) 5 GLT 72. It is established position in law that in a Claim Petition filed under Section 163A/amended Section 164 of the Act, claimants are only entitled to a maximum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation.

8.

Reference may be made to judgment of this Court in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh, (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2224117; wherein it is held that:-

FAO-2579-2010 Page 7 of 8 "Compensation under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should strictly adhere to the structured formula stipulated under Schedule-II of the Act, including deductions for personal expenses, prescribed limits for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium.

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 163-A Compensation payable under structured formula - Tribunal must follow Schedule-II of the Act - Deduction for personal expenses must be applied - Prescribed limits for heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium must not be exceeded - Maximum compensation in case of death cannot exceed Rs.5,00,000/-." 9.

Reliance may be placed upon judgment of this Court in Farrukh v. Sale Khan, (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2224013, wherein while placing reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 1911276, it has been held that:- "3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of the compensation amount on the ground that the learned Tribunal has merely awarded a lumpsum payment of Rs.1,20,000/-. It is submitted that even no multiplier has been applied and nothing has been granted under any of the conventional heads. Learned counsel relies upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6902 of 2021 titled as "Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & Another v. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Another".

Xxx

FAO-2579-2010 Page 8 of 8

10. It is undisputed that in a petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the Scheme/structured formula as contained in Schedule-II of the Act, has to be followed, whereunder inter-alia, compensation in a death case cannot exceed Rs. 5 lacs......." 10.

Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid factual and legal position. Thus, no ground is made out for enhancement of compensation.

11.

In view of the above, present appeal stands dismissed. 12.

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 28.04.2026 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No