IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 536 of 2015 MANNULAL DHANGI @ BHAJANLAL DANGI Versus SMT. PISTA DEVI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ram Kishor Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Shrinivas Gajendragadkar- Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 09.09.2014 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia (hereinafter referred to as "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 28/2013, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground that it was not legally maintainable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2012, at about 6:00 PM, the appellant was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle with his relative from Datia to Samai. Near Village Jhadiya, another motorcycle bearing registration MP-32-MC/0794, coming from the opposite direction, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle on which the appellant was traveling. As a result of the collision, both drivers of the motorcycles died, and the appellant sustained grievous injuries to various parts of his body. The police conducted an investigation and filed a final report (Khatma Report). The appellant then filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the accident.

3. The respondents filed written statements denying all allegations in the claim petition. The Claims Tribunal framed issues, recorded evidence from both parties, and after hearing arguments, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it is not maintainable.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant filed this misc. appeal with submission that the Claims Tribunal erred in law by dismissing the claim petition under Section 163A on the ground that the appellant did not suffer permanent disability. Prior to the accident, the appellant was 50 years old and employed in the Electricity Department. Due to the accident, the appellant sustained 60% permanent disability, as confirmed by an orthopedic doctor who was a member of the Medical Examination Board (Exhibit P-66). The appellant had undergone treatment at Kalyan Memorial Hospital, Gwalior, for approximately 40 days, including surgical operations involving insertion of steel rods in both legs. The appellant calculated his loss of income at Rs. 40,000 per annum (based on his monthly salary of Rs. 6,000) and claimed additional amounts for medical expenses, special diet, pain, suffering, and transportation. The appellant argued that the Claims Tribunal adopted a technical approach, ignoring both oral and documentary evidence proving permanent disability, and that the award was therefore bad in law and liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the appeal and submitted that the claim petition under Section 163A was not maintainable as the appellant’s annual income exceeded Rs. 40,000/- which is the statutory limit prescribed for availing benefits under Section 163A. The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal was in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant judicial precedents.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the Claims Tribunal.

7. In case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2004 ACJ 934 Company Limited reported in

2004 ACJ 934 in paragraphs 42, 53, 56, 66 and 67 has held as under:-

“42 [Para 42 corrected vide Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./64/2004 dated 12-7-2004] . Section 163-A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the people whose annual income is not more than Rs 40,000