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

What is distinction between S 163-A and 164 of Motor vehicle Act?

 How Urmila Halder and Chandrakant Ravji Dore guide the transition from the former structured-compensation regime to the present fixed-sum remedy

Why the distinction matters

Sections 163-A and 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 share a common social-welfare objective: compensation without requiring the claimant to establish negligence. They are nevertheless not interchangeable. Section 163-A belonged to the former Second Schedule regime, whereas present Section 164—operational from 1 April 2022—creates a fixed statutory remedy of Rs.5 lakh for death and Rs.2.5 lakh for grievous hurt.

Two decisions illuminate different aspects of this transition. In The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, the Supreme Court held that the beneficial amendment to the Second Schedule notified on 22 May 2018 could apply to a pending Section 163-A case even though the accident predated the notification. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Chandrakant Ravji Dore, the Bombay High Court held that negligence and contributory negligence cannot defeat or reduce compensation under present Section 164.

The first case concerns the temporal application of a revised computational mechanism under old Section 163-A. The second concerns the nature and operation of present Section 164. A MACT must preserve that distinction.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Amendment in S 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which came into effect on 22nd May, 2018, would relate to an accident which had occurred prior to the said date

The short point for consideration before this Court is whether the amendment in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect by a Gazette Notification on 22nd May, 2018, would relate to an accident which had occurred prior to the said date. {Para 4}

 10. The order of the High Court is well discussed and we agree with the view taken. We may, however, add that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. In the present case, the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company has not been interfered with. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. ... of 2024 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6260 of 2019)

Date of Order: 08.02.2024

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Halder

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SCOR/20390/2024.

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

Supreme Court To Reconsider Judgment Barring Claim Under S.163A MV Act After Dismissal of S.166 Motor vehicle Claim

 By the 2019 amendment, which came into force on 01.04.2022, Section 163A of the Act has now been repealed for the reason that a similar provision has been inserted in the Act, in fact, an entirely new Chapter, i.e. Chapter XI which bears the similar provision in Section 164 of the Act, is now incorporated. Be that as it may, for our purposes, what is relevant is that at the time when the accident occurred, it was Section 163A of the Act, which was applicable. {Para 7}

11. Indeed, the finding that if the accident occurred due to the fault of one's own driver, but even in such a case, the claimants would be prohibited from moving an application under Section 163A of the Act; if they had unsuccessfully moved an application under Section 166 of the Act, is a difficult proposition in law to be accepted; especially given the beneficial nature of the provision which is also one incorporated, notwithstanding the other provisions of the Act or any other law in force.

12. The position, all the same, is that we are presently bound to follow the three-Judge Bench decision in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra). However, considering our difficulty, which we have expressed hereinabove, with all respect but purely in the interests of justice, we are of the opinion that this matter requires re-consideration by another three-Judge Bench and therefore, we refer the matter to Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India for constituting a three-Judge Bench for re-consideration of the issue.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. ... of 2025.

Date of Order: 13.02.2025

Valsamma Chacko and Ors. Vs. M.A. Titto and Ors.

Coram:  SUDHANSHU DHULIA J, K. VINOD CHANDRAN.

Citation:  MANU/SCOR/19670/2025.

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