[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veersingh Parihar vs P.Shrinivas Rao on 11 February, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5369
1 MA-76-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 76 of 2013
VEERSINGH PARIHAR
Versus
P.SHRINIVAS RAO AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Jain- Advocate for appellant/claimant.
Shri Badri Nath Malhotra - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/claimant seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated
28.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri
(hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.
273/2011, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed
under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground that it
was not legally maintainable.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2010 at about 1:30 p.m.,
appellant/claimant was travelling from Badarwas to Kolaras in his jeep
bearing registration No. MP-07/CA-1220. When the jeep reached in front of
Tami Baba Hotel on A.B. Road, a truck bearing registration No. AP-16/TU-
5878, coming from the Kolaras side, was being driven at a high speed and in
a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1. The said truck collided
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5369
2 MA-76-2013
with the claimant's jeep, as a result of which the wheel of the jeep broke and
the claimant sustained serious injuries, including fracture of his leg. A report
of the accident was lodged at Police Station Badarwas. Upon completion of
investigation, a crime was registered and a charge-sheet was filed against
respondent No.1. The driver was arrested, the vehicle was seized, and after
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Competent Court. As a
result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant suffered
permanent disability. He also suffered serious physical, mental, and financial
hardship due to the accident. Thereafter, claimant filed a claim petition
before the Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the MV Act seeking
compensation.
3. Respondent No.1 was proceeded ex parte and did not file his reply.
Respondent No.2 filed reply and denied claim averments. After framing the
issues and recording the evidence, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim
petition on the ground that it was not maintainable.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant submitted that Claims Tribunal committed a grave legal
error in reducing the compensation and ultimately dismissing the claim
application without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and
without following the settled judicial precedents. The Tribunal erred in
discarding the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Disability
Board (Ex. P/45) and the medical evidence, including MLC and X-ray
reports, and wrongly assessed the permanent disability at only 10%, despite
clear evidence of 39% permanent disability of the left leg. The Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5369
3 MA-76-2013
further failed to award just compensation towards medical expenses, loss of
income, special diet, attendant charges and pain and suffering, despite
prolonged hospitalization and permanent functional disability. It is further
submitted that the dismissal of the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act on the ground of income was erroneous, as the Tribunal ought
to have assessed the annual income within the permissible limit and passed
an award accordingly.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposed
the appeal and submitted that the claim petition under Section 163A was not
maintainable as the appellant's annual income exceeded Rs. 40,000/- which
is the statutory limit prescribed for availing benefits under Section 163A.
The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal was in accordance with
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant judicial precedents.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record
of the Claims Tribunal.
7. In case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India
Insurance Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance
Company Limited reported in 2004 ACJ 934 Company Limited reported in
2004 ACJ 934 in paragraphs 42, 53, 56, 66 and 67 has held as under:-
"42 [Para 42 corrected vide Corrigendum No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./64/2004 dated 12-7-2004] . Section 163-A was,
thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the
people whose annual income is not more than Rs 40,000
having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of
the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto,
compensation is to be paid on a
structured formula not only having regard to the age of the
victim and his income but also the other factors relevant
therefor. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in
full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5369
4 MA-76-2013
the different columns contained in the Second Schedule
appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The
note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents
makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the
total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to be
reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim
would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he
been alive. This together with the other heads of
compensation as contained in columns 2 to 6 thereof leaves
no manner of doubt that Parliament intended to lay a
comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate
compensation to a section of victims who would require the
amount of compensation without fighting any protracted
litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to
negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or
any other fault arising out of use of a motor vehicle.
53.Although the Act is a beneficial one and, thus, deserves
liberal construction with a view to implementing the
legislative intent but it is trite that where such beneficial
legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness
or doubt therein, the court would not travel beyond the same
and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of
extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered
thereby. (SeeRegional Director, ESI Corpn.v.Ramanuja
Match Industries[(1985) 1 SCC 218 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 213 :
AIR 1985 SC 278] .
56.It is now well settled that for the purpose of interpretation
of statute, sameis to be read in its entirety. The purport and
object of the Act must be given its full effect. (SeeHigh
Court of Gujaratv.Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat(2003)
4 SCC 712 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 565 : JT (2003) 3 SC 50]
,Indian Handicrafts Emporiumv.Union of India[(2003) 7
SCC 589] ,Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd.v.Shapoorji Data
ProcessingLtd(2004) 1 SCC 702 : JT (2003) 9 SC 109 :
(2003) 9 Scale 713] andAshok Leyland Ltd.v.State of T.N.
[(2004) 3 SCC 1 : (2004) 1 Scale 224] ) The object
underlying the statute is required to be given effect to by
applying the principles of purposive construction.
66.We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that
where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to
claim of compensation under the Act and also under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim
compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act
contains different expressions as, for example, "under the
provision of the Act", "provisions of this Act", "under any
other provisions of this Act" or "any other law or otherwise".
In Section 163-A, the expression "notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in
force" has been used, which goes to show that Parliament
intended to insert a non obstante clause of wide nature which
would mean that the provisions of Section 163-A would
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5369
5 MA-76-2013
apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act
or any other law for the time being in force. Section 163-A of
the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of
the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and
the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of.
67.We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala [(2001) 5
SCC 175 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 857] has correctly been decided.
However, we do not agree with the findings in
Kodala[(2001) 5 SCC 175 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 857] that if a
person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual
income of Rs 40,000 per annum shall be treated as a cap. In
our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a
social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme,
only those whose annual income is up to Rs 40,000 can take
the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be
determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.
8. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs in Deepal Girishbhai Soni
(supra)Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) clearly shows that Section 163A was
enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of people whose annual
income does not exceed Rs.40,000/-. While the Act is beneficial and
deserves liberal construction, it provides a distinct scheme with no
ambiguity. Paragraph 67 clearly states that only persons with annual income
up to Rs. 40,000/- can avail benefits under Section 163-A. All other claims
must be adjudicated under Chapter XII of the Act.
9. The law laid down in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) is reiterated
by subsequent judgments, including Nasir Khan v. Dinesh and Others Nasir
Khan v. Dinesh and Others (MA No. 640 of 2006, decided on 02.09.2024),
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Prabha and National Insurance
Company Ltd v. Smt. Prabha and Others (MA No. 371 of 2007, decided on
18.09.2024), The Branch Manager, Shriram The Branch Manager, Shriram
General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dilu Rai General Insurance Company
Ltd v. Dilu Rai (MACA No. 10 of 2018, decided on 04.04.2022, High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5369
6 MA-76-2013
of Sikkim) and The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance The Branch
Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. R. Jothi and Another
Company Ltd v. R. Jothi and Another (Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3053 of 2017,
decided on 26.04.2022, Madras High Court). It is thus settled that if the
annual income of a claimant exceeds Rs. 40,000 per annum, a claim under
Section 163-A is not maintainable.
10. In the present case, for seeking compensation under Section 163-
A, the claimant's income must not exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum. The
appellant, in his evidence, stated that he was 27 years old, working as a
driver, and earning Rs. 4000/- per month. Thus, as per his own statement, his
annual income comes to Rs.48,000/- which exceeds the statutory limit of
Rs.40,000/-. In such circumstances, the appellant's claim is not maintainable
under Section 163-A of the Act.
11. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings
recorded by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned Award dated 28/09/2012
passed by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, the
miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is dismissed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
Prachi
