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

Madras HC: How to calculate compensation under S 163A of Motor vehicle Act?

 Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The appellants are entitled only for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. In view of the excess amount granted by the Tribunal under conventional heads, the appellants are not entitled to any enhancement.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

C.M.A.No.400 of 2020

Sendhiammal  Vs. Ramshuklal

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

DATED: 13.02.2020.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Madras HC: Claimant is not entitled to get future prospect U/S 163A of Motor vehicle Act

From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the appellants claimed compensation for the death of one Munusamy. When the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A), the Tribunal has to follow structural formula contained in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the Second Schedule, the claimants are entitled to compensation only if the income of the deceased is Rs.40,000/- per annum or less than the same. The claimants have claimed in the claim petition that the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month and the Tribunal accepting the same, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, fixed the age as 31 years as per Post Mortem Certificate, applied multiplier 17 and granted compensation as per the Second Schedule. As per structural formula, the appellants are not entitled for any enhancement towards future prospects. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

C.M.A.No.400 of 2020

Sendhiammal  Vs. Ramshuklal

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

DATED: 13.02.2020.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Owner of Insured vehicle involved in accident is not entitled to claim Compensation from Insurance Company of insured vehicle U/S 163A of Motor vehicle Act

 The appellant is correct to state that under Section 163A of the MV Act, the owner of the vehicle, who was involved in the accident and criminal case being registered against him, cannot file the proceedings before the Tribunal against the Insurance Company to which his vehicle is registered. However, learned Tribunal by recording perverse findings that instead of motorcycle, the auto-rickshaw involved in the accident, was insured with the appellant Insurance Company, decided the claim petition. Hence it is his submission that prima facie the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse and same are liable to be quashed and set aside. {Para 16}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

FIRST APPEAL NO . 672 OF 20 18

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ashish S/o Gopal Yadao 

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 17.10.2025.

Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:11196

Print Page

Whether petition under S 166 of MV Act can be converted into S 163A MV Act?

 The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that earlier the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Act, but subsequently sought permission to convert the said application to one under Section 163-A of the Act, it would amounts to change in the cause of action and the same is not justifiable. 

15. By going through the above said decision, it goes to show that conversion of the application from 166 to 163-A would amounts to change in the cause of action and the Tribunal was not justified in allowing such change. But in the decision of Guruanna Vadi and another Vs. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1528, this Court has held that during the pendency of the proceedings filed under Section 166 of the Act, the petitioner can amend the said petition to convert into 163-A of the Act provided, if other conditions are satisfied. For the purpose of brevity, I extract paragraphs No.36 and 37, which reads as under:

36. The only bar provided for exercising an option in the matter of filing a claim petition for compensation is to be found in section 163-B which states, "where a person is entitled to claim compensation under section 140 and section 163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both". There is no prohibition in any other provision of the Act from switching over the claim made under section 166 to section 163-A provided the accident took place on 14.11.94 or thereafter, because section 163-A came on the statute book only with effect from 14.11.94; subject, of course, to the claimants satisfying other requirements such as the outer income limit mentioned in the Second Schedule. Section 163-A is

beneficial legislation and provides for payment of compensation based on structured formula without requiring pleading or establishing that the death or permanent disability in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person. Such a beneficial legislation has to be given a liberal interpretation. Therefore, we answer this question in the affirmative by holding that a claimant can move the court for amendment of his claim petition filed under section 166 to that of a petition under section 163-A at any stage of the proceedings and it would be for the concerned court to pass an order on that application in accordance with law.

Karnataka High Court

Rama Bommayya Naik vs Anilkumar Ayyappan Pillai on 22 March, 2018

Print Page