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

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