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

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 76 of 2013 VEERSINGH PARIHAR Versus P.SHRINIVAS RAO AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pradeep Jain- Advocate for appellant/claimant.

Shri Badri Nath Malhotra - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 273/2011, 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 24.09.2010 at about 1:30 p.m., appellant/claimant was travelling from Badarwas to Kolaras in his jeep bearing registration No. MP-07/CA-1220. When the jeep reached in front of Tami Baba Hotel on A.B. Road, a truck bearing registration No. AP-16/TU- 5878, coming from the Kolaras side, was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1. The said truck collided with the claimant’s jeep, as a result of which the wheel of the jeep broke and the claimant sustained serious injuries, including fracture of his leg. A report of the accident was lodged at Police Station Badarwas. Upon completion of investigation, a crime was registered and a charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.1. 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 claimant suffered permanent disability. He also suffered serious physical, mental, and financial hardship due to the accident. Thereafter, claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the MV Act seeking compensation.

3. Respondent No.1 was proceeded ex parte and did not file his reply.

Respondent No.2 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 Claims Tribunal committed a grave legal error in reducing the compensation and ultimately dismissing the claim application without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and without following the settled judicial precedents. The Tribunal erred in discarding the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Disability Board (Ex. P/45) and the medical evidence, including MLC and X-ray reports, and wrongly assessed the permanent disability at only 10%, despite clear evidence of 39% permanent disability of the left leg. The Tribunal further failed to award just compensation towards medical expenses, loss of income, special diet, attendant charges and pain and suffering, despite prolonged hospitalization and permanent functional disability. It is further submitted that the dismissal of the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground of income was erroneous, as the Tribunal ought to have assessed the annual income within the permissible limit and passed an award accordingly.

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