IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT GWALIOR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

<>

ON THE 5

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

MISC. APPEAL No. 510 of 2009

<>

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

<>

Versus

HARISH CHANDRA SENGAR AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri S.N.Gadkar - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.

Shri Maroof Ullah Sidddiqui- Advocate for respondent No.1/claimant.

ORDER

<>

This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance

Company seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 12.12.2008 passed by the

Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (hereinafter referred to as "Claim

Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 117/2006, whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs. 4,09,000/- to the respondent No.1/claimant.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed a claim

application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking

compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/- for permanent disability sustained by him

in a road traffic accident dated 31.12.2005 while driving Truck bearing registration No.

MP07-G-4430. It was alleged that on the said day, while driving towards Indore, the

truck met with an accident with another truck bearing No. UP78-AT-4105, as a result of

which the claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability to the

extent of 50%. The claimant alleged that at the time of accident he was aged 35 years

and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- along with a daily allowance of Rs. 30/-

per day. The claim application was opposed by the appellant/Insurance Company on

the grounds that the driver, owner, and insurer of the other vehicle involved in the

1 MA-510-2009NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:136

accident (Truck No. UP78-AT-4105) were necessary parties, and in their absence, the

claim was not maintainable. It was also contended that the insured vehicle was plying

in violation of policy conditions, and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company was

not liable to pay any compensation. The Claim Tribunal, however, allowed the claim

application and directed the appellant/Insurance Company along with respondent No.2

to pay Rs. 4,09,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the claimant.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company by placing reliance on the decision of coordinate Bench

of this Court in the case of Vikram Singh vs. Vijaypal Sharma and Others, decided on

15th of July, 2025 in Misc. Appeal No.1255 of 2009, submitted that the award is

contrary to the facts and material on record as well as settled principles of law, and is

therefore liable to be set aside. It was contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred

in holding that the claimant’s income fell within the threshold for claim under Section

163-A, whereas, as per the claim petition, the claimant was earning a monthly salary of

Rs. 4,000/- plus daily allowance of Rs.30/-, which works out to an annual income

exceeding Rs. 40,000/-. It was argued that Section 163-A provides a distinct scheme

under the Act for persons whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 40,000/-, and

claims of those earning above this limit are required to be determined under Chapter

XII of the Act. It was further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in

assessing permanent disability at 50% without any basis. The treating doctor did not

specify the part of the body affected nor the overall impact on the whole body. No

deduction was made towards personal expenses of the claimant, and the Tribunal failed

to consider contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Therefore, it was argued

that the claim under Section 163-A was not maintainable, and the compensation

awarded was excessive and without justification.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the

appeal, submitting that the claim was maintainable under Section 163-A, and the Claim

2 MA-510-2009NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:136

Tribunal had correctly assessed the compensation. It was submitted that since the

claimant pleaded his monthly income as Rs. 4,000/- with daily allowance of Rs. 30/-,

his annual income falls within the limit for the purpose of Section 163-A, and the claim

petition was rightly entertained.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance

<>

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 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, same

is 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,

3 MA-510-2009NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:136

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 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.”

9. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs in 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.

10. The law laid down in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra)

<>

is reiterated by

subsequent judgments, including Nasir Khan v. Dinesh and Others

<>

(MA No. 640 of

2006, decided on 02.09.2024),

<>

National Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Prabha and

<>

Others

<>

<>

(MA No. 371 of 2007, decided on 18.09.2024), The Branch Manager, Shriram

<>

General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dilu Rai

<>

(MACA No. 10 of 2018, decided on

04.04.2022, High Court of Sikkim) and The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance

<>

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

4 MA-510-2009NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:136

(HIRDESH)

<>

JUDGE

<>

maintainable.

11. In the present case, the claimant/Respondent No.1, in his claim petition,

stated that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as salary and Rs.30/- per day as daily

allowance. Even as per the claim petition and evidence recorded before the Claims

Tribunal, the claimant’s annual income exceeded Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the claim

petition under Section 163-A read with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act

was not maintainable.

12. In view of the above, the impugned Award dated 12.12.2008 passed by the

Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the

appellant/Insurance Company is, therefore, allowed.

<>

The impugned award directing

payment of Rs.4,09,000/- with interest to the claimant is set aside.

<>

No order as to costs.

MKB

5 MA-510-2009NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:136