Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balkishan Prajapati vs Lakhan on 23 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3078
1 MA-992-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 992 of 2015
BALKISHAN PRAJAPATI
Versus
LAKHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Tomar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 568/2012, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground that it was not legally maintainable.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.07.2011, the appellant was travelling in truck bearing registration No. MP-07-G-6654 carrying four quintals of wheat sacks for storage at Girraj's Parkama. When the said truck reached A.B. Road, Noorabad, Morena, near Balveer Dandotia College, the driver of another truck bearing registration No. DL-01-LG-6432 suddenly reversed his truck on the road, as a result of which truck No. MP-07-G-6654 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3078 2 MA-992-2015 collided with it. Due to the said accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries to his left hand. Information regarding the accident was given to concerned police station pursuant to which an FIR was registered. The driver was arrested, the vehicle was seized, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Competent Court. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant suffered permanent disability. He also suffered serious physical, mental, and financial hardship due to the accident. Thereafter, appellant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the MV Act seeking compensation.
3. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte and did not file their replies. Respondent/Insurance Company filed reply and denied claim averments. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the ground that it was not maintainable.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the award dated 03.07.2015 is contrary to law and settled principles. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act solely on the basis of the appellant's oral statement regarding income, without any documentary proof or specific finding that his annual income exceeded ₹40,000. It was further submitted that the Tribunal could have treated the income as ₹40,000 per annum and that dismissal of the claim on technical grounds, despite the appellant being a third party, is contrary to the beneficial object of the Act and judicial precedents.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3078 3 MA-992-2015
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposed the appeal and submitted that the claim petition under Section 163A was not maintainable as the appellant's annual income exceeded Rs. 40,000/- which is the statutory limit prescribed for availing benefits under Section 163A. The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal was in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant judicial precedents.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the Claims Tribunal.
7. In case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2004 ACJ 934 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3078 4 MA-992-2015 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, sameis 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, 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3078 5 MA-992-2015 the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.
8. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra)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.
9. The law laid down in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) is reiterated by subsequent judgments, including Nasir Khan v. Dinesh and Others Nasir Khan v. Dinesh and Others (MA No. 640 of 2006, decided on 02.09.2024), National Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Prabha and National Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Prabha and Others (MA No. 371 of 2007, decided on 18.09.2024), The Branch Manager, Shriram The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dilu Rai 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 The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. R. Jothi and Another 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 maintainable.
10. In the present case, for seeking compensation under Section 163- Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3078 6 MA-992-2015 A, the claimant's income must not exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum. The appellant, in his evidence, stated that he was 44 years old, working as a potter, and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Thus, as per his own statement, his annual income comes to Rs.1,44,000/- which exceeds the statutory limit of Rs.40,000/-. In such circumstances, the appellant's claim is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act.
11. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned Award dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM