Case at a Glance
A jeep driver died when the vehicle he was travelling in swerved to avoid stray cattle and fell into a ditch near Kalesar in October 2004. His widow and three daughters claimed no-fault compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal at Jagadhari awarded Rs 2,67,000 in 2005, taking his income at only Rs 2,200 a month. Deciding the family’s appeal after two decades, Justice Deepak Gupta held that driving is skilled work and refixed income at the skilled minimum wage. Following the Supreme Court in Roopa v. The Manager, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd., the Court then applied the fixed compensation of Rs 5,00,000 under the new Section 164 and raised the award to Rs 5 lakh with 7.5% interest.
On the intervening night of 18/19 October 2004, at about 1:30 a.m., a jeep travelling from Lal Dang towards Jagadhari met with an accident near Kalesar. Stray cattle suddenly came onto the road; the driver braked, lost control and the vehicle went into a ditch. All the occupants were injured and Jai Singh, assessed to be about 38, died. His widow and three minor daughters filed a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the owner and the insurer, saying he worked as a driver with a private company and earned Rs 3,300 a month.
By its award of 28 November 2005, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, did not accept the claimed salary because no appointment letter, salary register or other document was produced. It took his income at Rs 2,200 a month, deducted Rs 700 towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 14 and added Rs 10,000 for loss of consortium and Rs 5,000 for funeral expenses, awarding Rs 2,67,000 in all. The owner and insurer were held jointly and severally liable. The family appealed in 2006 (FAO-990-2006); the appeal was finally heard in October 2026. The accident and liability were not in dispute; the family sought a higher income figure, future prospects and parental consortium.
The Key Question Before the Court
In a Section 163-A claim for an accident of 2004 that was still pending in appeal, should compensation be worked out under the old Second Schedule formula, or can the claimants get the fixed compensation of Rs 5 lakh now provided in Section 164 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act?
From Rs 2,200 a Month to the Section 164 Benchmark
Justice Deepak Gupta first dealt with income. The claimants relied on Anita v. Arun Yadav, (2017) 09 SC CK 0121, (2018) 17 SCC 465, to argue that a driver is a skilled worker. The Court agreed that the deceased’s work as a driver was sufficiently established and that driving is skilled work, but held that the specific salary of Rs 3,300 a month was still not proved. It therefore took the notified minimum wage for a skilled worker in October 2004, Rs 2,930 a month or Rs 35,160 a year. This was within the Rs 40,000 a year ceiling for claims under Section 163-A, so the claim remained maintainable under that provision. The Court also noted, citing Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 03 SC CK 0032, (2004) 5 SCC 385, that Sections 163-A and 166 are distinct remedies.
The Court then turned to Section 164, inserted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 with effect from 1 April 2022, which provides fixed compensation of Rs 5,00,000 in death cases. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Roopa v. The Manager, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6797 of 2026, decided 27 April 2026) and the High Court’s own rulings in Kailash Kaur v. Rajinder Kaur (FAO-4210-2001) and Lajwanti v. Nawab Singh (FAO-5651-2004), it extended that benefit to this Section 163-A claim arising from a pre-2022 accident. Having done so, it found it “unnecessary to undertake a further computation” under the erstwhile Second Schedule, and so did not separately decide the claims for future prospects and parental consortium.
What the Court Actually Held
- Driving is skilled work; since the deceased’s employment as a driver was established, his income was refixed at the skilled minimum wage of Rs 2,930 a month (Rs 35,160 a year) for October 2004, though the unproved salary of Rs 3,300 was rejected.
- The claim stayed within the Rs 40,000 annual-income ceiling for Section 163-A; Sections 163-A and 166 remain distinct remedies, as explained in Deepal Girishbhai Soni.
- Following Roopa, Kailash Kaur and Lajwanti, the fixed compensation of Rs 5,00,000 under the new Section 164 was extended to this pending Section 163-A claim for a 2004 accident, making a Second Schedule computation unnecessary.
- The appeal was partly allowed: total compensation raised from Rs 2,67,000 to Rs 5,00,000; the enhanced Rs 2,33,000 carries 7.5% interest from the date of the claim petition till realisation, with liability unchanged as fixed by the Tribunal.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many old no-fault claims decided on tiny Second Schedule figures are still pending in appeal. This ruling shows that the Rs 5 lakh benchmark of Section 164 can be applied to them, following the Supreme Court in Roopa.
- It confirms that a driver is a skilled worker for income purposes even when salary papers are missing, which matters for drivers, cleaners and other transport workers across India.
- It is a practical illustration of how the 2019 amendment, in force from 1 April 2022, is being applied to accidents that happened long before it.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- If your Section 163-A claim or appeal is still pending, ask the court to apply the Rs 5 lakh fixed compensation under Section 164 in death cases, citing Roopa.
- Even without salary slips, proof that the deceased worked as a driver can get income fixed at the skilled minimum wage.
- Interest on the enhanced amount runs from the date of filing of the claim petition, so long-pending appeals can still bring meaningful relief.
For Counsel
- Place the notified minimum-wage schedule for the month of the accident on record when salary is unproved.
- Check the Rs 40,000 annual-income ceiling for Section 163-A claims before choosing between Section 163-A and Section 166.
- Cite Roopa along with the High Court’s Kailash Kaur and Lajwanti rulings for applying Section 164 to pre-2022 accidents.
Key Takeaways
- Driver treated as skilled worker; income refixed at Rs 2,930 a month (minimum wage, October 2004).
- Claimed salary of Rs 3,300 rejected for want of proof.
- Section 164 fixed compensation of Rs 5 lakh extended to a pending Section 163-A claim, following Roopa.
- Award raised from Rs 2.67 lakh to Rs 5 lakh, with 7.5% interest on the Rs 2.33 lakh enhancement from the claim date.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between Section 163-A and Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Section 163-A, now repealed, allowed structured no-fault compensation using the Second Schedule for victims whose annual income was up to Rs 40,000. Section 164, inserted by the 2019 amendment and in force from 1 April 2022, provides fixed compensation of Rs 5 lakh for death and Rs 2.5 lakh for grievous hurt without proof of negligence.
Can the Rs 5 lakh under Section 164 be claimed for an accident before 2022?
In this case, yes. Following the Supreme Court in Roopa v. The Manager, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd. and earlier High Court rulings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court extended the Section 164 benefit to a pending Section 163-A claim arising from a 2004 accident.
Why was the driver’s salary of Rs 3,300 not accepted?
Because no appointment letter, salary register or other document proved it. The Court accepted that he was a driver and took the skilled minimum wage of Rs 2,930 a month instead.
Conclusion
For a widow and three daughters who had waited since 2006, the High Court’s ruling nearly doubled the compensation without a fresh formula calculation. By treating the Rs 5 lakh in Section 164 as the measure for a pending no-fault claim, the Court brought an old Section 163-A case in line with the amended law as read by the Supreme Court in Roopa.
Practical takeaway: In any pending Section 163-A death claim, test the Second Schedule figure against the Rs 5 lakh benchmark of Section 164 and ask for the higher amount, with interest from the date of the claim petition.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com