IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 992 of 2015 BALKISHAN PRAJAPATI Versus LAKHAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dinesh Singh Tomar - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 568/2012, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground that it was not legally maintainable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.07.2011, the appellant was travelling in truck bearing registration No. MP-07-G-6654 carrying four quintals of wheat sacks for storage at Girraj’s Parkama. When the said truck reached A.B. Road, Noorabad, Morena, near Balveer Dandotia College, the driver of another truck bearing registration No. DL-01-LG-6432 suddenly reversed his truck on the road, as a result of which truck No. MP-07-G-6654 collided with it. Due to the said accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries to his left hand. Information regarding the accident was given to concerned police station pursuant to which an FIR was registered. The driver was arrested, the vehicle was seized, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Competent Court. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant suffered permanent disability. He also suffered serious physical, mental, and financial hardship due to the accident. Thereafter, appellant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the MV Act seeking compensation.

3. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte and did not file their replies. Respondent/Insurance Company filed reply and denied claim averments. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the ground that it was not maintainable.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the award dated 03.07.2015 is contrary to law and settled principles. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act solely on the basis of the appellant’s oral statement regarding income, without any documentary proof or specific finding that his annual income exceeded ₹40,000. It was further submitted that the Tribunal could have treated the income as ₹40,000 per annum and that dismissal of the claim on technical grounds, despite the appellant being a third party, is contrary to the beneficial object of the Act and judicial precedents.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 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 having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended ther