Injury, Not Blame: Proving “Grievous Hurt” in a No-Fault Claim under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act

 The governing idea

Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 creates a fixed-compensation, no-fault remedy. In an injury claim, the central questions are not who drove negligently or who was responsible for the collision, but whether: (i) an accident arose out of the use of the vehicle concerned; (ii) the claimant sustained bodily injury because of that accident; and (iii) the injury legally qualifies as “grievous hurt.” On proof of those foundational facts, the owner or authorised insurer is liable to pay the statutory sum of ₹2,50,000; Section 164(2) expressly relieves the claimant of proving any wrongful act, neglect or default.

This distinction may be expressed in one sentence:

Vehicle involvement and causal connection must be proved; fault and blame need not be proved.

That is the conceptual dividing line. Section 164 of motor vehicle Act dispenses with an inquiry into negligence, but it does not dispense with proof that the identified motor vehicle was involved in an accident arising out of its use and that the accident caused a legally recognised grievous hurt.

Why Section 164 of motor vehicle Act matters

Print Page

Bombay HC: In a proceeding U/S 163-A or S 164 of the Motor vehicle Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim

 For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim. {Para 9}

(Emphasis supplied)

Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Gohar Mohammed Vs. U.P. SRTC2 has reiterated that the claimant is not required to plead or establish any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of vehicle or driver or any other person for payment of compensation under Section 164 of the MV Act. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid decision is reproduced below: -

48. The aforesaid provision has been brought where the claimant(s) is not required to plead or establish any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner(s) of the vehicle(s) or of any other person for payment of compensation. Therefore, sub-section (1) has been given overriding effect limiting the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 5 lakhs in case of death and Rs 2:50 lakhs in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or to the victims), as the case may be.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 1431 of 2025

Decided On: 09.06.2026

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Chandrakant Ravji Dore

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aarti Sathe, J.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:23333,MANU/MH/4806/2026.

Print Page

Andhra Pradesh HC: Legal Heirs Can Claim Compensation under S.163A MV Act even If Deceased Driver Was Negligent

It is evident that the accident resulted in the death of the deceased and, therefore, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable, having regard to the object of the Act, which is a beneficial and welfare legislation. Even assuming that the deceased was negligent and contributed to the accident, in view of the amendment brought by Act 32 of 2019, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the case of death as contemplated under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Though the accident had occurred prior to the said amendment, at the time of final adjudication by this Court, the claimants are entitled to be granted the maximum benefit so as to ensure award of just and reasonable compensation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MACMA No. 262 of 2023

Decided On: 07.05.2026

Veerapaneni Venkata Subhashini and Ors. Vs. Arikatla Venkata Rathnam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

Citation:  MANU/AP/1296/2026.

Print Page

Sikkim HC: The Motor accident claim tribunal can not grant Future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads in petition U/S 163A of Motor vehicle Act

 In light of all the foregoing discussions, we hold that

under Section 163A Future prospects or any other additional

non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim

Petition under Section 163A of the M. V. Act is to be strictly

computed on the structured formula provided in the Second

Schedule to the Act. The reference stands answered

accordingly. {Para 20}

 THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAC App. No.10 of 2018

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs  Dilu Rai and Others

DIVISION BENCH : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE

Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

DATED : 4th APRIL, 2022.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Legal representatives of deceased are not entitled to claim compensation u/s163­A of the Motor vehicles Act.

  Under Section 163A, the persons who are entitled to apply for compensation are the legal heirs, in the case of death of a person and in the case of injury, the victim. Once a claim is made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, then application for compensation can be filed by the persons enumerated in the section, namely the person who sustained injury, by the owner of the property, where the death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, or by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. There is wide difference in the words used in both the sections regarding the persons entitled to apply for compensation in the case of death of a person, who died in a motor vehicle accident. Under Section 166, in the case of death, the persons entitled to claim compensation are the legal representatives of the deceased. But in the case of a claim under Section 163A, the persons entitled to claim compensation are the legal heirs. Further, in the case of 166, even if, a person is not a legal heir, if he is able to prove that, he/she is a dependant of the deceased, then irrespective of the fact, whether he/she is a legal heir or not, is entitled to claim compensation, in proportion to the extent of dependency claimed by him/her. In such cases, the dependency will have some relevance for the purpose of assessing compensation. But for a claim under Section 163A, the dependency has no relevancy, because the persons who are entitled to file an application for compensation for the death of the deceased are the legal heirs and not the legal representatives. Once it is proved by the appellants that, they are legal heirs of the deceased then, in a claim under Section 163A, they are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased. Legal representatives include legal heirs as well and not vice versa.{Para 6}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

M.A.C.A. No. 896 of 2008

Decided On: 18.10.2013

Kadeeja and Ors. Vs. Managing Director, KSRTC, Tvm and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Siri Jagan and K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.

Author: K. Ramakrishnan, J.

Citation: 2014 ACJ 1492 (Ker)­, MANU/KE/1078/2013.

Print Page

A claim petition u/s 166 of MV Act can be preferred by legal representative of deceased whereas, a claim petition u/s 164 can be preferred by legal heirs of deceased only

As per Section 166(1)(c) of the Act legal representative of the deceased can prefer a claim petition u/s 166 of the M V Act. Whereas, Section 164 can be preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased. There is  difference in the provisions contained u/Ss 166 and 164 of the M V Act. As stated hereinabove a claim petition u/s 166 can be preferred by the legal representative of the deceased whereas, a claim petition u/s 164 can be preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased only.

 164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

Print Page

Whether petition on the ground of fault liability is barred by res judicata if earlier petition on the ground of no fault liability is dismissed?

The learned Presiding Officer has recorded his affirmative findings to the issue Nos. 1 and 2 and negative findings to the issue No. 3. The observations of the learned Presiding Officer on issue No. 3 read thus:

"A bare reading of Section 163-A would show that the claimant is entitled for compensation under this Section only in case of a death or permanent disablement due to the accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. In this particular case it is admitted fact that the claimant has not sustained any permanent disability. Therefore, ex facie it appears that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation."

Further, it is an admitted fact that the claimant/appellant has not preferred any appeal against the findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer who has decided the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Without filing an appeal, the claimant/appellant has filed a fresh petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act based upon fault liability.

{Para 10}

11. It is material to note that the issue relating to the permanent disability has already been decided by the learned Presiding Officer and the negative findings were recorded, still the claimant/appellant under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has filed petition for compensation on account of permanent disability. Therefore, in my opinion the things which are already decided cannot be decided again and again in the subsequent proceedings.

13. So looking to the short controversy, I am of the opinion that the things which were already adjudicated by the competent Court cannot be adjudicated in the subsequent suit. Therefore, the subsequent petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is barred by principle of res judicata. I have gone through the reasons recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, from which it appears that the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition. Hence, there is no substance in the present appeal. As such, the appeal stands dismissed.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

First Appeal No. 11 of 2010

Decided On: 23.07.2015

P. Beenitha Vs. Jose C.R. Pires and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.L. Wadane, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2520/2015,2016 ACJ 1343 (Bombay – Goa).

Print Page