1. Collision between two vehicles resulting in death of a driver — Claim petition filed under Section 163A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1054
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
The New India Assurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Usha Devi And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9474 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15191 of 2020)
with
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Usha Devi And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9475 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9460 of 2022)
Decided On : 14-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Kk Bhat, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Verma, Adv. Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Anju, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR Mr. Vikas Verma, AOR Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Kavita Verma, Adv. Mr. Anamay Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Yunas, Adv. Ms. Anju, Adv. Ms. Vibha Keshari Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay K Chadha, Adv. Mrs. Vandana Beri, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Kk Bhat, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Kk Bhat, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Verma, Adv. Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Anju, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR Mr. Vikas Verma, AOR Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Kavita Verma, Adv. Mr. Anamay Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Yunas, Adv. Ms. Anju, Adv. Ms. Vibha Keshari Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay K Chadha, Adv. Mrs. Vandana Beri, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Kk Bhat, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
No-fault liability – While entertaining claim petition u/s 163A of Act, question of negligence cannot be looked into.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163-A – Motor Insurance – No-fault liability – Death in motor accident – Lumpsum compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs with 9% interest awarded by High Court – Claim petition filed under Section 163A of Act does not require any proof of negligence for seeking compensation – While entertaining claim petition under Section 163A of Act, question of negligence cannot be looked into – Section 163 A has overriding effect on all other provisions of the Act – There was collision between two vehicles – Compensation cannot be determined as prescribed under Section 166 of MV Act as sought for by claimants – Deceased in instant case would be a ‘third party’ in so far as offending vehicle (Dumper) is concerned – Deceased was aged 35 years – Appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 17 – Total compensation of Rs.4,77,839/- with 8% interest awarded. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17)
Facts of the case:
By these appeals to special leave, the Insurance Companies have laid challenge to the order dated 12.02.2020 passed in Usha Devi & Ors. v. Chatar Pal Singh Yadav & Ors. passed by High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereunder award of Tribunal which had dismissed application for grant of compensation came to be set aside and awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a. Hence, these appeals by Insurers of both the vehicles involved in the accident, on whom joint several liability is fastened.
Findings of Court:
Amount deposited in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9460 of 2022 shall be transmitted to jurisdictional tribunal with accrued interest thereon to be disbursed in favour of claimant with proportionate accrued interest and balance and shall be refunded to the appellant/petitioner (National Assurance Company Limited) with proportionate accrued interest.
Result : Appeals allowed in part.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Case Details: The judgment pertains to Civil Appeals No. 9474 of 2025 and No. 9475 of 2025, involving The New India Assurance Company Limited and National Insurance Company Limited (Appellants) versus Usha Devi and Others (Respondents), decided on 14-07-2025 by a bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ. (!) (!)
- Core Legal Principle (No-Fault Liability): Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claim petition does not require proof of negligence; the question of negligence cannot be looked into while entertaining such a claim. (!) (!)
- Overriding Effect of Section 163-A: Section 163-A has an overriding effect on all other provisions of the Act, including Section 166. Therefore, compensation determined under a Section 163-A petition must follow the structured formula of the Second Schedule, not the provisions of Section 166. (!) (!)
- Status of Deceased as Third Party: In the absence of positive evidence proving the deceased was at fault (especially since the insurer failed to examine the sole eyewitness, the deceased's brother), the deceased is considered a 'third party' in relation to the offending vehicle (the dumper), making the insurer of that vehicle liable. (!) (!)
- Compensation Calculation:
- Annual Loss of Income: Calculated at Rs. 26,667/- (based on an accepted annual income of Rs. 40,000/- after deducting personal expenses). (!)
- Multiplier: A multiplier of 17 was adopted as the deceased was 35 years old. (!)
- Loss of Income Award: Rs. 4,53,339/- (Rs. 26,667 x 17). (!)
- General Damages: Rs. 9,500/- awarded for loss of consortium (Rs. 2,000), funeral expenses (Rs. 5,000), and loss of estate (Rs. 2,500). (!)
- Medical Expenses: Capped at Rs. 15,000/- as per the Second Schedule. (!)
- Total Award: Rs. 4,77,839/- with interest at 8% p.a. (!)
- Final Order: The appeals were allowed in part. The amount deposited by one insurer was refunded to them, while the amount deposited by the other insurer was transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal for disbursement to the claimants in specific ratios. (!) (!) (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the requirement of proving negligence under Section 163A, the applicability of the Second Schedule for compensation, and the status of the driver as a third party. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Compensation under Section 163A is based on a structured formula and does not require proof of negligence, overriding other provisions of the Act. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Adjudication under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act must be made without proof of negligence, following the structured formula in the Second Schedule. (Para 11 , 13 )
5. Appeals allowed in part — Compensation reduced to structured formula amount — Insurer of the offending vehicle held liable to indemnify the award. (Para 15 , 17 , 19 )
6. Is proof of negligence required for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act?
No. Compensation under Section 163A is based on a structured formula and is granted without any requirement of proof of negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. (Para 11 )
7. How is compensation determined when a claim is filed under Section 163A?
Compensation must be determined according to the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, rather than the principles used under Section 166. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
8. Does Section 163A have priority over other sections of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Yes, Section 163A contains a non obstante clause giving it an overriding effect over all other existing provisions of the Act and other laws in force. (Para 12 )
9. When is a driver of one vehicle considered a third party in relation to another vehicle in an accident?
In the absence of positive evidence proving the manner in which the accident occurred, a driver of one vehicle involved in a collision is considered a third party relative to the other offending vehicle. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By these appeals to special leave, the Insurance Companies have laid challenge to the order dated 12.02.2020 passed in Usha Devi & Ors. v. Chatar Pal Singh Yadav & Ors. passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereunder the award of the tribunal which had dismissed the application for grant of compensation came to be set aside and awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a. Hence, these appeals by the insurers of both the vehicles involved in the accident, on whom joint several liability is fastened.
3. Facts essential for the adjudication of the present matter are briefly narrated. On the unfortunate night of 15.11.2006, Mr. Surender Singh was driving a truck bearing No. HR-38L/6727, and his vehicle was hit by the dumper bearing registration No. HR-38H-9100 in the area of Pali Crusher Zone, and due to the impact he sustained serious injuries, and was rushed to GTB Hospital, Delhi, where he expired away on 22.11.2006 while being treated. FIR No. 411 dated 15.11.2006 came to be registered u/s 279/337/ 304-A IPC, 1860 at Police Station Ballabgarh against the driver of the dumper. A claim petition under Section 163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 came to be filed by the dependents of deceased seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- alleging Mr. Islam, driver of the offending vehicle namely crusher bearing registration No. HR-38H-9100 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident. It was also contended that at the time of the accident, deceased Surender Singh was working as a truck driver and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- and was aged 35 years. It was also contended that he was survived by six dependents, i.e., his wife Smt. Usha Devi, four children and his aged mother.
4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) by its judgment and award dated 15.10.2011 dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it was not maintainable as claimants had failed to prove that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent act attributable to Mr. Islam i.e., the driver of the crusher i.e., offending vehicle and hence did not proceed to compute compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 15.10.2011, the claimants filed an appeal u/s 173 of the Act before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 12.02.2020 allowed the appeal in part and awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the claimants and directed that compensation amount should be paid jointly by all the respondents therein and directed both the insurance companies to indemnify the award initially and reserved their rights to recover it from the owners of the respective vehicles if permissible under the respective policies.
6. It is against this judgment of the High Court dated 12.02.2020 these two appeals have been filed by both the Insurance Companies namely SLP (C) No. 15191/2020 has been filed by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (the Insurer of the Vehicle- truck bearing registration No. HR-38L/6727 driven by the deceased Mr. Surender Singh) and SLP (C) No. 9460/2022 has been filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Company (the Insurer of the Offending Vehicle dumper/crusher truck bearing registration No. HR-38H-9100 driven by Mr. Islam).
7. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, the Ld. Counsel for Appellant/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. contended, inter-alia that the compensation awarded to the claimants is exorbitant and against the settled law and hence it ought to be reduced. He has also contended that awarding of a lump sum compensation is against the scheme of S. 163A of the Act, since compensation has to be determined as per the Second Schedule of the Act only. He further contended that no amount can be provided under the heads of loss of ‘love and affection’ and ‘physical/mental pain and agony’, as the same are not provi
