Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramusingh @ Bhanupratap Singh vs Pintu Gurjar on 28 April, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13678
1 MA-333-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 28 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 333 of 2020
RAMUSINGH @ BHANUPRATAP SINGH
Versus
PINTU GURJAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhlesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the appellant/claimant.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal-Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance
Company.
ORDER
This appeal by the appellant/claimant u/S. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is arising out of the award dated 05/11/2019 passed by Additional MACT, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) (in short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.29/2016 whereby the Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed on behalf of appellant/claimant for seeking compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2014 at about 01:30 AM, the appellant was driving his vehicle on the correct side of the road and had reached the main road between Mihona and Gwalior in District Bhind. It is alleged that a jeep bearing registration No. MP-06 HC/2801 was negligently parked on the main road without any indicator or signal. Due to this, the appellant's Bolero jeep collided with the said parked vehicle from behind. As a result of the accident, three persons, namely Dhadhu, Amarsingh, and Golu, died, and another person, Parthi Ramusingh @ Bhanupratap, sustained serious injuries leading to permanent disability. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, and after investigation, a charge- Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 5/2/2026 12:46:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13678 2 MA-333-2020 sheet was filed.
3. Respondent No.1 proceeded ex-parte and Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed written statements and thereafter, learned Claims Tribunal framed the issues and after recording the evidence rejected the claim petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, appellant filed this appeal and submitted that the impugned award is arbitrary and contrary to law and that the Claims Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record. It is contended that the claim petition has been rejected merely on the basis of oral statement regarding income without there being any documentary evidence or specific finding that the annual income of the appellant exceeded Rs.40,000/-. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned award be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has supported the impugned award and submitted that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable as the appellant's annual income exceeded Rs.40,000/-, which is the statutory limit prescribed for invoking the provisions of Section 163-A. It is further submitted that the appellant failed to produce any certificate to establish permanent disability suffered in the alleged accident and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the entire record of the Claims Tribunal.
7. In the case ofPrabhu Lal Vs. Babulal @ Ors. in MA No. 382/2006 decided on 24/04/2006 wherein para 6 held as under :-
"6. Section 163A was inserted in the Act w.e.f. 14-11-1994. It provides special provisions for compensation on structured formula Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 5/2/2026 12:46:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13678 3 MA-333-2020 basis. A conjoint reading of provision of the Section 163A with other sections of Act reveals that it is open for a victim or legal representatives of a victim of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle to proceed for compensation based upon the principle of no fault liability. In other words, Section 163A provides for payment of compensation on structured formula in an accident resulting into death of permanent disablement without the proof of negligence. Section 163A of the Act starts with the language that gives an overriding effect to it over any other law for the time being in force. Moment a claimant comes forward with a prayer under Section 163A then he can succeed if it could be shown that prima facie death or permanent disability complained of was the result of the accident arising out use of a motor vehicle. This is ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rita Devi's case (supra). In that case an autorickshaw was hired by passengers for use as a public carrier and later on slain body of autorickshaw driver was discovered. Considering the viability of claim petition under Section 163A of the Act in the proximity of cause of such murder. Their Lordships after considering various authorities, held that a death (murder) of an autorickshaw driver during the course of employment was an accident and covered by the Section 163A of the Act for payment of compensation without proof of negligence on the part of deceased driver. There is no argument with the proposition of law laid down by Their Lordships in the aforesaid decision, however, with due respect, said proposition in the opinion of this Court, is inapplicable to the facts of the appeal in hand. Appellant chose Section 163A to claim compensation. There is not a shred of evidence that appellant suffered any injury resulting in permanent disablement or physical impairment. It is clear that appellant/claimant could not prove that he sustained any permanent disability on account of the alleged incident which took place on 30-9-2003. Section 163A provides for compensation on no fault liability for death or permanent disability. In absence of the proof that appellant sustained any permanent disability in the alleged accident, appellant is not entitled to claim compensation. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal so as to warrant interference with the impugned award. Consequently appeal being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed summarily."
8. In the present case, the appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence, particularly a permanent disability certificate, to establish that he suffered permanent disability on account of the accident. In absence of such proof, the essential requirement for maintaining a claim under Section 163-A is not satisfied.
9. In regard to income which exceeds Rs. 40,000/- per annum, 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 5/2/2026 12:46:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13678 4 MA-333-2020 Company Limited reported in 2004 ACJ 93 4 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 5/2/2026 12:46:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13678
5 MA-333-2020 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 the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.
10. 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.
11. 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. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 5/2/2026 12:46:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13678 6 MA-333-2020
12. In the present case, appellant/claimant pleaded in his pleading that his income was Rs. 12,000/- per month Thus, as per his own statement, his annual income comes to Rs.Five-Six Lacs 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.
13. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned Award dated 05/11/2019 passed by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 5/2/2026 12:46:59 PM