No-fault liability under Section 164 MV Act entitles interim compensation for grievous hurt without proving negligence, adjustable against final award.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition to set aside the order dt. 15.07.2025 in MP.No.2 of 2025 in M.C.O.P.No.3022 of 2023 on the file of the V-Small Causes Court, Chennai and consequently may be pleased to allow No Fault Liability Claim with 12 percent interest U/S 164 of M.V.Act 1988 as Amended in 2022.

2. Before the Tribunal, the claimant/insured filed an application under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking interim compensation. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, directing the claimant either to amend the main claim petition from Section 166 to Section 164 or to file a fresh application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

3. The revision petitioner submitted that he met with a road accident on

29.09.2022, as a result of which he sustained severe fractures. He has claimed compensation of Rs. 1,52,45,000/-. The petitioner further submitted that he, being an advocate by profession and aged about 62 years, has been unable to continue his profession due to the injuries and has suffered for more than a year.

In order to meet medical expenses and compensate for pain and suffering, he sought interim relief.

4. Accordingly, he approached the Tribunal by filing an interim application in M.P. No. 2 of 2025 in MCOP.No.3022 of 2023, under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the same properly and erroneously dismissed the application, leading to the present revision.

5. The petitioner submitted that under the principle of no-fault liability, he is entitled to invoke Section 164 and claim interim compensation. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment in Gohar Mohammed Vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation held in Page No.37, as follows:

“The aforesaid provision has been brought where the claimants is not required to plead or establish any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of any other person for payment of compensation. Therefore sub section(1) has been given overriding effect limiting the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakhs in case of death and Rs. 2.50 lakhs in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or to the victim, as the case may be. It is further made clear the compensation, if payable in any other law, then such amount is required to be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section, meaning thereby the legislative intent is clear that a person, who has suffered with an accident must be compensated just and reasonably and the victim/family of the deceased must be paid for the bodily injury or loss of life caused by an accident by use of a motor vehicle at a public place”

6. The petitioner also submitted that, before the Tribunal, no objection was raised by the respondent. However, the Tribunal declined to apply the said provision, as reflected in paragraph 37 of its order. It is made clear that if any amount is paid under Section 164, the same is liable to be deducted from the final compensation awarded under Section 166.

7. Thus, interim relief is permissible under the statutory scheme, and up to Rs. 2,50,000/- can be awarded for grievous injuries under Section 164, which can later be adjusted against the final compensation in the main claim petition.

The Tribunal, however, failed to grant such relief, which is erroneous.

8. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, and the provisions must be applied in a purposive manner rather than on technical or hypothetical grounds. The Tribunal has failed to adopt such an approach. Accordingly, the impugned order passed in MP.No.2 of 2025 in M.C.O.P.No.3022 o