Rekha vs Angrej and Others

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.10.2024.

The facts, in brief, are that the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on account of the death of Aakash @ Vipin, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 30.07.2019. The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-60E-0696. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the death had occurred on account of the use of the aforesaid motorcycle. The deceased was found to be 19 years of age and his annual income was assessed at ₹40,000/-.

On the basis of the aforesaid income, the Tribunal, applying the multiplier of 18 and making deduction of one-third towards personal expenses, assessed the loss of dependency at ₹4,80,000/-. It further awarded ₹2,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹2,500/- towards loss of estate, thereby arriving at a total compensation of ₹4,84,500/-. However, keeping in view the statutory regime applicable to the claim and the compensation prescribed in case of death under the no-fault scheme, the Tribunal awarded ₹5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in treating ₹5,00,000/- as the maximum compensation payable. According to learned counsel, the amount of ₹5,00,000/- prescribed under the statutory no-fault regime is the compensation payable on account of death and does not preclude an award of additional amounts under conventional heads, particularly loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Reliance has primarily been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, (2022) 1 SCC 317.

Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no merit in the appeal.

The question which arises for consideration is narrow, namely, whether, in a claim petition instituted under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimant can seek amounts under conventional heads over and above ₹5,00,000/-, so as to exceed the amount prescribed under the statutory no-fault/structured-formula regime.

The distinction between a claim under Section 166 and one under Section 163-A of the Act assumes significance in this regard. A claim under Section 166 requires determination of 'just compensation' on the basis of the evidence on record and the principles evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including those relating to loss of dependency, future prospects and conventional heads. Section 163-A, on the other hand, provides a special no-fault remedy under which compensation is determined in accordance with the statutory formula, without requiring the claimant to plead or establish wrongful act, neglect or default.

Thus, the two remedies operate in different statutory fields. While Section 166 is founded upon the concept of determination of 'just compensation', Section 163-A provides a structured statutory basis for determination of compensation. Having elected to invoke the latter remedy, the claimant cannot import into it the principles governing assessment of compensation under Section 166 in a manner which would defeat the limits prescribed by the statutory scheme.

In the present case, there is no dispute that the claim petition itself was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. The Tribunal accordingly proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of the structured formula. On the income assessed at ₹40,000/- per annum, after deduction towards personal expenses and application of the appropriate multiplier, the Tribunal arrived at ₹4,84,500/- including the amounts awarded under funeral expenses and loss of estate. It thereafter noticed that the statutory compensation payable in the event of death was ₹5,00,000/- and, being the higher amount, awarded the same to the claimant.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that conventional heads are required to be added over and above ₹5,00,000/- cannot be accepted. Such an approach would, in effect, convert the statutory amount into a mere base amount and permit compensation to travel beyond the maximum prescribed limit under the structured-formula regime. Such an interpretation would render the statutory limit otiose and would amount to adding words to the legislation.

The reliance placed upon Kurvan Ansari (supra) does not advance the case of the appellant. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a claim under Section 163-A arising out of an accident which had occurred in the year 2004 and the compensation was determined with reference to the statutory framework then applicable. The Court assessed the notional income of the deceased child at ₹25,000/- per annum, applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded ₹3,75,000/- towards loss of dependency, besides amounts under the conventional heads, resulting in total compensation of ₹4,70,000/-.

The decision in Kurvan Ansari (supra), however, was not concerned with the precise question arising for consideration in the present appeal, namely, whether amounts under conventional heads can be awarded over and above a statutory maximum of ₹5,00,000/- prescribed under the subsequently applicable no-fault statutory regime. The judgment, therefore, cannot be construed as laying down an absolute proposition that every claim under Section 163-A necessarily permits addition of conventional heads over and above the statutory ceiling.

This aspect has subsequently been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Asha and another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, FAO-6555-2025 (O&M), decided on 17.04.2026. After considering the statutory scheme and the relevant authorities, the coordinate Bench held that in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A/the corresponding statutory no-fault regime, the claimants are entitled to a maximum compensation of ₹5,00,000/- in accordance with the structured formula contained in the Second Schedule. The Bench relied upon, inter alia, the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Urmila Halder v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : Law Finder Doc Id # 1250725, the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited through Assistant Manager v. Kamlesh Kumari and others, FAO-705-2003, decided on 05.03.2020, and the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Bijaya Bhuyan and others, (2018) 5 GLT 72.

The coordinate Bench in Asha (supra) also noticed the judgment of this Court in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh, Law Finder Doc ID # 2224117, wherein it was held that compensation under Section 163-A has to adhere to the structured formula, including the prescribed limits in respect of funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium, and that the compensation in a death claim cannot exceed ₹5,00,000/-.

The same principle was noticed by this Court in Farrukh v. Sale Khan (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2224013, wherein the claimant had sought enhancement by placing reliance upon Kurvan Ansari (supra). The subsequent decisions, therefore, make it clear that Kurvan Ansari cannot be understood as authorising an award beyond the maximum prescribed limit under the statutory structured-formula regime.

The principle is also consistent with the distinction between Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act. The decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, laying down principles regarding future prospects and conventional heads, operate in the context of determination of 'just compensation' under Section 166. They cannot be applied in derogation of the specific statutory limitations governing a claim under Section 163-A.

It is, therefore, not permissible for a claimant to invoke the beneficial features of the structured no-fault remedy while, at the same time, seeking to supplement the compensation by importing the principles applicable to a claim under Section 166. The two statutory remedies have distinct fields of operation and their respective principles cannot be intermixed in such a manner.

In the present case, the Tribunal has, in fact, already granted the claimant the benefit of the higher amount. On the structured computation, the compensation came to ₹4,84,500/-, whereas the Tribunal awarded ₹5,00,000/- keeping in view the statutory amount applicable in the case of death. Thus, the claimant has not been confined to the amount arrived at by applying the multiplier and making the prescribed deductions; rather, the Tribunal has awarded the higher statutory amount.

Once the compensation payable under the applicable statutory regime has been determined at ₹5,00,000/-, no further amount under conventional heads can be added so as to take the total compensation beyond the prescribed maximum. Accepting the appellant's contention would effectively render the statutory ceiling meaningless.

This Court is also bound to take note of the recent decision of the coordinate Bench in Asha (supra), which directly deals with the same controversy and, after considering Kurvan Ansari (supra) and the other relevant authorities, has reiterated that the maximum compensation payable under the structured-formula/no-fault regime is ₹5,00,000/-. In the absence of any contrary binding pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the precise issue involved herein, the said view deserves to be followed.

Consequently, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon Kurvan Ansari (supra) is misplaced. The said judgment does not lay down that the amount of ₹5,00,000/- prescribed under the applicable statutory regime is merely a minimum amount to which conventional heads must invariably be added. The compensation in the present case having already been enhanced by the Tribunal to ₹5,00,000/-, no further enhancement is warranted.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned award insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned. The appeal, seeking further enhancement by awarding amounts under conventional heads over and above ₹5,00,000/-, is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.