Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2025:CGHC:48014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1369 of 2018 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division Office No. 1, Madina Building Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing No. C G - 04 - Zq - 1116), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Uma Kannoje Wd/o Late Bhanu Shanker Kannoje Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chherkapur , Police Station Palari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tadu Kannoje S/o Late Bhanu Shanker Kannoje, Aged About 7
Legal Reasoning
Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Uma Kannoje, R/o Village Chherkapur , Police Station Palari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shakshi Kannoje D/o Late Bhanu Shanker Kannoje Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Uma Kannoje , R/o Village Chherkapur , Police Station Palari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Leelak Ram Sahu Shri Chhediram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Pragati Nagar Mowa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing No. C G 04-Zq-1116) (Non - Applicant No. 1 ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Khemraj Sahu S/o Shri Sohan Lal Sahu R/o House No. 135, Urkura, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing No. C G 04-Zq-1116) (Non - Applicant No. 2 ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 6 - (Deleted) Sukbati (Dead) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dt. 05-11- 2020., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Tijau S/o Jhunau, Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 256, Village Chherkapur, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No.5 ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 :- Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 :- Mr. Satish Surya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 18.09.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 57/2012. The learned Tribunal assessed total compensation of ₹5,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization, and fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. 2. As per the averments in the claim petition, on 20.01.2010, the deceased, Bhanu Shankar, aged about 29 years and earning 3 ₹200/- per day by working as a labourer, died in a motor vehicular accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of a tractor bearing registration No. CG04-ZQ-1116 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) by its driver (non-applicant No.1). At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and was insured with non-applicant No.3, i.e., the Insurance Company. 3. Upon a claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), the learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence adduced by both parties, passed the award as referred to in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal, primarily on the ground that the compensation awarded exceeds the statutory ceiling of ₹5,00,000/-, as prescribed under Section 163A of the Act, 1988. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), which is a special provision based on the principle of no-fault liability and provides for a structured formula for determining compensation. She further submits that the Second Schedule to the Act, which governs claims under Section 163A, contains a maximum cap of ₹5,00,000/- for compensation. She also submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Urmila 4 Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 2644 of 2020, decided on 05.03.2020], has categorically held that the compensation under Section 163A of the Act cannot exceed ₹5,00,000/-. Therefore, the impugned award of ₹5,80,000/- is contrary to law and liable to be modified to conform to the statutory ceiling. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 support the impugned award and submit that the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, has rightly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The short question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the compensation awarded under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) can exceed ₹5,00,000/-. 8. In the present case, the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, which is a special provision based on the principle of no-fault liability and provides for compensation to be determined as per a structured formula. The Second Schedule to the Act, which governs claims under Section 163A, prescribes a maximum cap of ₹5,00,000/- for compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of 5 Urmila Devi (supra), after analyzing the statutory framework and the Second Schedule, held as under: “Compensation under Section 163A is subject to a statutory cap of ₹5,00,000/-. Any amount awarded beyond this limit would be in contravention of the statutory framework and therefore not sustainable.”
Decision
9. In view of the above clear pronouncement of law, the award passed by the learned Tribunal, to the extent it exceeds ₹5,00,000/-, cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the claimants deserves to be modified and restricted in terms of the statutory ceiling. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the compensation payable under Section 163A of the Act, 1988 shall be restricted to ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha