Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Prakash Pathak vs Satyendra Singh Parihar on 2 September, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20124
1 MA-461-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 461 of 2010
RAVI PRAKASH PATHAK
Versus
SATYENDRA SINGH PARIHAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri O.P.Mathur - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].
ORDER
This appeal by the appellant/claimant u/S. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is arising out of the award dated 17.12.2009 passed by Second MACT,
District- Datia (M.P.) (in short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.31 of
2009 whereby the Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed on behalf
of appellant for seeking compensation.
Brief facts of the case are that on 30.11.2008, appellant/claimant was
travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.MP 32 P 0127 and due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver, appellant received injuries and a case was
registered against respondent No.1/driver of the offending bus, therefore,
appellant/claimant filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal under Section
163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for seeking compensation against
respondents.
Counsel for respondents filed their written statements and thereafter,
learned Claims Tribunal framed the issues after recording the evidence found that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20124
2 MA-461-2010
appellant was unable to prove that he was travelling in the roof of the offending
bus, therefore, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition.
Being aggrieved by the impugned award, appellant filed this appeal and
submitted that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is arbitrary and contrary
to law. The Claims Tribunal has not considered the evidence adduced by the
appellant/claimant. Hence, it is prayed that impugned award be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance
Company has supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of this
appeal. Further, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhu Lal vs. Babulal & Ors . in MA
No.382/2006 decided on 24.04.2006 wherein para 6 held as under:-
"6. Section 163A was inserted in the Act w.e.f. 14-11-1994. It
provides special provisions for compensation on structured
formula basis. A conjoint reading of provision of the Section 163A
with other sections of Act reveals that it is open for a victim or
legal representatives of a victim of an accident arising out of the
use of motor vehicle to proceed for compensation based upon the
principle of no fault liability. In other words, Section 163A
provides for payment of compensation on structured formula in an
accident resulting into death of permanent disablement without the
proof of negligence. Section 163A of the Act starts with the
language that gives an overriding effect to it over any other law
for the time being in force. Moment a claimant comes forward
with a prayer under Section 163A then he can succeed if it could
be shown that prima facie death or permanent disability
complained of was the result of the accident arising out use of a
motor vehicle. This is ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court
in Rita Devi's case (supra). In that case an autorickshaw was hired
by passengers for use as a public carrier and later on slain body of
autorickshaw driver was discovered. Considering the viability of
claim petition under Section 163A of the Act in the proximity of
cause of such murder. Their Lordships after considering various
authorities, held that a death (murder) of an autorickshaw driver
during the course of employment was an accident and covered by
the Section 163A of the Act for payment of compensation without
proof of negligence on the part of deceased driver. There is no
argument with the proposition of law laid down by Their
Lordships in the aforesaid decision, however, with due respect,
said proposition in the opinion of this Court, is inapplicable to the
facts of the appeal in hand. Appellant chose Section 163A to claim
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20124
3 MA-461-2010
compensation. There is not a shred of evidence that appellant
suffered any injury resulting in permanent disablement or physical
impairment. It is clear that appellant/claimant could not prove that
he sustained any permanent disability on account of the alleged
incident which took place on 30-9-2003. Section 163A provides
for compensation on no fault liability for death or permanent
disability. In absence of the proof that appellant sustained any
permanent disability in the alleged accident, appellant is not
entitled to claim compensation. In view of the above discussion, I
find no merit in this appeal so as to warrant interference with the
impugned award. Consequently appeal being devoid of substance
is hereby dismissed summarily."
After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the Claims
Tribunal, it is found that appellant has filed an application for seeking
compensation under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but, he has not
filed any certificate to prove his permanent disability in the alleged accident.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal has
rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, no interference of this Court is
required.
Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
