[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Omaram vs Omaram (2026:Rj-Jd:6638) on 4 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6638]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 165/2026
1. Lrs Of Omaram, Son Of Shri Sawaram (Since Died)
Through His Legal Representatives R/o Rampura, Tehsil
Samdari, Dsitrict Baloatra Raj. Registered Owenr
1/1. Leela Devi W/o Late Shri Omaram, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Rampura, Tehsil Samdari, Dsitrict Baloatra Raj.
1/2. Naresh Kumar S/o Late Shri Omaram, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Rampura, Tehsil Samdari, Dsitrict Baloatra Raj.
1/3. Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Omaram, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Rampura, Tehsil Samdari, Dsitrict Baloatra Raj.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Omaram S/o Shri Binja Ram, R/o Rampura, Teshil
Samdari District Balotra Raj. Driver
2. Ghanshyam Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o Rampura,
Teshil Samdari District Balotra Raj. Claimant
3. Kanta Devi W/o Shri Ghanshyam Kumar, R/o Rampura,
Teshil Samdari District Balotra Raj. Claimant
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Suthar a/w
Mr. Sukhdev Patel, Mr. Kshitij Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sankhla.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
04/02/2026
1. By way of present civil misc. appeal, the appellants-non-
claimant No. 2 have challenged the Judgment and Award dated
29.01.2025 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Balotra in M.A.C.T. Original Claim No.30/2019 (Ghanshyam Kumar
& Anr. vs. Omaram & Anr.), whereby the claim petition under
Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act filed by the respondent
Nos. 2 & 3-claimants has been allowed.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:56:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6638] (2 of 6) [CMA-165/2026]
2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of present appeal
in short are that on 11.12.2018, deceased Rajkumar, a boy of 12
years, died in a motor accident when a tractor bearing
Registration No. RJ-16-RB-0884, driven rashly and negligently, hit
him from behind while he was riding a bicycle in village Rampura.
An FIR was registered and after investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed against the driver. The parents of the deceased (i.e.
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) filed a claim petition under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act
of 1988' hereinafter), claiming compensation of ₹5,25,000/-. The
driver (respondent No. 1 herein) and the owner of offending
tractor (appellant herein) denied the allegations. Upon
adjudication, the tribunal, applying the Gazette Notification dated
22.05.2018, awarded compensation of ₹6,75,000/- with interest
@ 7% per annum from 30.01.2019, holding the driver and owner
jointly and severally liable. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants-
owner have preferred present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal
has erred in deciding Issue No.1. The claim having been filed
under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, respondents-claimants
failed to establish negligence and the finding recorded is
premature, especially when the criminal trial is still pending.
4.1 It is further submitted that non-claimant No.2, the
husband/father of the appellants, expired during pendency of the
claim proceedings and his legal representatives were not duly
represented, rendering the proceedings virtually ex parte thereby
vitiating the impugned award.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:56:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6638] (3 of 6) [CMA-165/2026]
4.2 It is also submitted that the tribunal is also stated to have
misapplied the Second Schedule of the Act of 1988, resulting in
grant of excessive compensation.
4.3 It is further submitted that award of interest at the rate of
7% per annum is excessive, as the prevailing rate is 6%. It is also
contended that interest ought to have been awarded from the
date of the award and not from the date of filing of the claim
petition.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.
2 and 3 has supported the judgment and award and submits that
the tribunal after appreciating of entire evidence on record and
considering the position of law, has rightly awarded the
compensation in favour of the respondents-claimants, which does
not warrant any interference.
5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this
Court towards Notification dated 22.05.2018 and submits that
Second Schedule to Section 163A stood substituted providing
compensation payable in case of death to the tune of ₹5,00,000/-.
5.2 Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2004 ACJ 934
and contends that Section 163-A is a complete code in itself,
providing for final compensation on a structured formula basis.
Under Section 163-A, proof of negligence is not required and the
compensation is restricted to the Second Schedule. A claimant
who elects to seek compensation under Section 163-A waives the
right to claim higher compensation under Section 166. Thus, the
doctrine of election of remedies applies, and once compensation is
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:56:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6638] (4 of 6) [CMA-165/2026]
claimed under Section 163-A, the claimant cannot seek
adjudication under Section 166 for the same accident.
6. I have heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on record and the
judgment cited.
7. The primary contentions of the appellant-owner relate to (i)
alleged error in deciding Issue No.1 regarding negligence (ii)
representation of the deceased driver's legal heirs (iii) alleged
misapplication of the Second Schedule and excess compensation
and (iv) interest rate and its commencement date.
8. It is settled law that claims under Section 163-A of the Act of
1988 are governed by a no-fault liability scheme.
In Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under :-
"42. Chapter XI was, thus, enacted for grant of
immediate relief to a section of 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 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 column Nos. 2 to 6 thereof leaves no
manner of doubt that the Parliament intended to
lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of
grant of adequate compensation to a section of
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:56:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6638] (5 of 6) [CMA-165/2026]
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."
From the above, it is clear that proof of negligence is not
a requirement under Section 163-A. The scheme provides
structured compensation under the Second Schedule and a
claimant who avails Section 163-A waives the right to seek higher
compensation under Section 166. Therefore, the tribunal was
correct in proceeding with the claim and awarding compensation
without entering into detailed examination of negligence. The fact
that the criminal trial is pending does not bar the tribunal from
awarding compensation under the statutory provisions.
9. With regard to the representation of the deceased owner's
legal heirs i.e. appellants herein, the record shows that legal
representatives of Late Omaram were impleaded in the
proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to
demonstrate any lack of authority or procedural irregularity that
would vitiate the award. Ex-parte proceedings cannot be assumed
where legal representatives were duly brought on record and
represented by counsel. Thus, the tribunal has acted in
accordance with due process.
10. As to the compensation awarded, the tribunal has applied
the Gazette Notification dated 22.05.2018, which substituted the
Second Schedule, providing ₹5,00,000/- in case of death.
Considering the statutory provision for annual increase of 5% per
annum from 01.01.2019, the tribunal correctly enhanced the
compensation to ₹6,75,000/-, which is reasonable and in line with
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:56:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6638] (6 of 6) [CMA-165/2026]
the statutory formula. There is no merit in the submission that the
award is excessive or contrary to law.
11. Regarding interest, the tribunal has awarded 7% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition (i.e. 30.01.2019).
While the appellants contend that 6% per annum should have
been applied and interest should accrue from the date of the
award, the practice of awarding interest from the date of filing is
well-established and intended to compensate the claimants for the
delay in receiving the award. There is no manifest error or legal
infirmity in this regard.
12. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in
the judgment and award impugned.
13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and
award dated 29.01.2025 passed by the tribunal is affirmed.
14. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
15. No order as to costs.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
5-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:56:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
