# National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt Sudha Kumari & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 212
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-17
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2220 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/national-insurance-company-limited-v-smt-sudha-kumari-ors-52642
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

interest u/s 163A of Motor Vehicles Act,
particularly in light of the insurer's objections
that accident itself was doubtful due to the
absence of FIR and delayed G.D. entry, and the
Tribunal exceeded the statutory limit of ₹5 lakhs
by granting an additional ₹70,000/- under
conventional heads, despite the structured
formula prescribed u/s 163A and the amended
Second Schedule.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 163A, 164,
173 - Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - R. 220-A - The case concerns a
motor
accident
that
occurred
on
12.11.2018 near village Killi - Ritauli,
District Etawah, where the deceased,
Nand Kishore, aged about 34 years and
employed as a vegetable seller earning Rs.
3,300 per month, was standing by the
roadside awaiting transportation when
the offending Loader driven out of control
while attempting to avoid a herd of cows,
struck him and overturned, causing fatal
injuries leading to his death during
treatment at PGI Safai - Although no FIR
was lodged and only a delayed G.D. entry
dated 29.11.2018 was recorded - The
claimants
i.e.
his
widow
and
minor
children filed a petition u/s 163A of Motor
Vehicles Act seeking compensation, which
the Tribunal allowed by awarding Rs.
5,70,000 with 7% interest, fastening
liability upon the insurer, prompting the
insurer to file the present appeal.

Held: In the instant case, the tribunal has only
awarded Rs.70,000/- to the claimants towards
non pecuniary damages, which is less than the
amount of Rs. 90,000/- to which they are
entitled, which cannot be reduced any further
and cannot be said to be erroneous - It is
apparent that the effect of Rule 220-A of the
Rules
of
1998,
the
Constitutional
Bench
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (infra) and Magma General
Insurance
Co.Ltd.
(infra)
has
not
been
considered - The judgment also does not deal
with
grant
of
compensation
under
non
pecuniary heads in claim petition filed u/s 163A
of 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The
tribunal has not erred in awarding total
compensation
of
Rs.5,70,000/-
alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants,
warranting interference from this Court in
exercise
of
it's
appellate
jurisdiction
-
Accordingly, appeal is meritless and dismissed -
The impugned judgment and award of tribunal
dated 16.06.2025 is affirmed. [Paras 19, 21,
22, 23] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC
693; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18
SCC 130; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; United India
10 All. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt Sudha Kumari & Ors.
213
Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt. Sawari & Ors. FAFO
No.614 of 2019 - referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Uttar Pradesh Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Compensation awarded; Indemnified by the
insurer; Asserted income; Notional income;
Structured formula; Section 163A of Motor
Vehicles Act; Amended Second Schedule; No
FIR lodged; Delayed G.D. entry; Doubtful
accident; Involvement of the offending vehicle;
Testimony
of
witnesses;
Fatal
injuries;
Succumbed
to
injuries;
Statutory
limit;
Conventional heads; No illegality found; Appeal
lacks merit; Remit back the statutory deposit

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appal From
Order No. - 2220 of 2025
From Judgment and Award dated 16.06.2025
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Etawah in MACP No. 14 of 2019

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shrey Singh
Advs. for the Respondents:

## Text

212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith, if not already remitted.

25. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

26. The tribunal is directed to disburse
the compensation to the claimants as per its
judgment without any delay, if not already
disbursed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 212
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2220 of 2025

National Insurance Company Limited
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt Sudha Kumari & Ors. ... Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Shrey Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal committed any legal error in
awarding compensation of ₹5,70,000/- with
interest u/s 163A of Motor Vehicles Act,
particularly in light of the insurer's objections
that accident itself was doubtful due to the
absence of FIR and delayed G.D. entry, and the
Tribunal exceeded the statutory limit of ₹5 lakhs
by granting an additional ₹70,000/- under
conventional heads, despite the structured
formula prescribed u/s 163A and the amended
Second Schedule.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 163A, 164,
173 - Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - R. 220-A - The case concerns a
motor
accident
that
occurred
on
12.11.2018 near village Killi - Ritauli,
District Etawah, where the deceased,
Nand Kishore, aged about 34 years and
employed as a vegetable seller earning Rs.
3,300 per month, was standing by the
roadside awaiting transportation when
the offending Loader driven out of control
while attempting to avoid a herd of cows,
struck him and overturned, causing fatal
injuries leading to his death during
treatment at PGI Safai - Although no FIR
was lodged and only a delayed G.D. entry
dated 29.11.2018 was recorded - The
claimants
i.e.
his
widow
and
minor
children filed a petition u/s 163A of Motor
Vehicles Act seeking compensation, which
the Tribunal allowed by awarding Rs.
5,70,000 with 7% interest, fastening
liability upon the insurer, prompting the
insurer to file the present appeal.

Held: In the instant case, the tribunal has only
awarded Rs.70,000/- to the claimants towards
non pecuniary damages, which is less than the
amount of Rs. 90,000/- to which they are
entitled, which cannot be reduced any further
and cannot be said to be erroneous - It is
apparent that the effect of Rule 220-A of the
Rules
of
1998,
the
Constitutional
Bench
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (infra) and Magma General
Insurance
Co.Ltd.
(infra)
has
not
been
considered - The judgment also does not deal
with
grant
of
compensation
under
non
pecuniary heads in claim petition filed u/s 163A
of 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The
tribunal has not erred in awarding total
compensation
of
Rs.5,70,000/-
alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants,
warranting interference from this Court in
exercise
of
it's
appellate
jurisdiction
-
Accordingly, appeal is meritless and dismissed -
The impugned judgment and award of tribunal
dated 16.06.2025 is affirmed. [Paras 19, 21,
22, 23] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC
693; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18
SCC 130; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; United India
10 All. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt Sudha Kumari & Ors.
213
Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt. Sawari & Ors. FAFO
No.614 of 2019 - referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Uttar Pradesh Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Compensation awarded; Indemnified by the
insurer; Asserted income; Notional income;
Structured formula; Section 163A of Motor
Vehicles Act; Amended Second Schedule; No
FIR lodged; Delayed G.D. entry; Doubtful
accident; Involvement of the offending vehicle;
Testimony
of
witnesses;
Fatal
injuries;
Succumbed
to
injuries;
Statutory
limit;
Conventional heads; No illegality found; Appeal
lacks merit; Remit back the statutory deposit

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appal From
Order No. - 2220 of 2025
From Judgment and Award dated 16.06.2025
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Etawah in MACP No. 14 of 2019

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shrey Singh
Advs. for the Respondents:

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the insurance company
of the offending Loader No.UP-75K-9134
against the impugned judgment and award
dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah in
MACP No. 14 of 2019, Smt. Sudha Kumari
& others Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & another,
whereby, compensation of Rs.5,70,000/-
alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per
annum has been awarded to the claimants
for the untimely death of Nand Kishore
(deceased) in a motor accident which
occured on 12.11.2018, which was ordered
to be indemnified by the appellant
insurance company.

2. Factual matrix is that on 12.11.2018
at about 01.00 PM between village Killi
and Ritauli, within the jurisdiction of police
station Basrehar, District Etawah, the
deceased Nand Kishore was waiting for a
conveyance to go to his village by the
roadside, then suddenly a herd of 4-5 cows
came in front of the offending vehicle
Loader No.UP-75K-9134 and in order to
save them, the driver of the loader lost
control of the vehicle, which hit the
deceased, who was standing by the
roadside and thereafter, the offending
Loader overturned. The deceased was taken
to the District Hospital, Etawah and from
there he was taken to PGI Safai, where he
died during treatment. Regarding the
accident, a G.D. entry No.31 was recorded
on 29.11.2018 in Police Station Basrehar,
but the matter was not investigated.

3. The deceased was aged about 34
years at the time of the accident. He used to
sell vegetables and was earning Rs.3,300/-
per month. The claimant filed claim
petition under Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation
of Rs.7,42,000/-. The tribunal has awarded
a fixed compensation of Rs.5 lacs towards
loss of dependency, besides Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/-
each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.
In all, the tribunal awarded Rs.5,70,000/-
compensation alongwith interest @ 7% per
annum, which has been ordered to be
indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle.

4. In view of the above factual matrix,
learned counsel for the appellant insurance
company submitted that the accident was
wholly doubtful because no FIR was
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
registered and the information of the
accident was given belatedly at police
station Basrehar, as such, the tribunal could
not have awarded any compensation to the
claimants. He further submitted that under
Section 164 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 for no-fault liability, a maximum
compensation of Rs.5 lacs is payable in
death cases, but in addition to that, the
tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- towards
conventional heads, which is erroneous.
With these submissions, it was prayed that
the appeal be admitted and decided on
merits.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the impugned
judgment and documents submitted with
the appeal.

6. The appellant has annexed the copy
of G.D. entry No.31 dated 29.11.2018 at
18.35 hours of P.S. Basrehar, District
Etawah, which discloses that at the time of
the accident the deceased was waiting by
the roadside for the conveyance to go to his
village and then, suddenly a herd of 4-5
cows emerged, who were trying to cross
the road and in order to save them, the
driver of the offending Loader lost control
of the vehicle which hit the deceased and
overturned, causing grievous injuries to the
deceased, who was taken to the District
Hospital, Etawah, and from there to PGI,
Safai, where he died during treatment. In
the G.D. entry itself, it is mentioned that
there was no fault of anyone in this
accident. It is apparent that the matter was
not investigated by the police and as such,
no charge sheet was submitted in the
criminal
court.
In
the
postmortem
examination and Panchayatnama of the
deceased, accidental injuries were found on
his body and the doctor opined that the
deceased died due to the injuries suffered in
the accident.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi
vs. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC
693,
while
analyzing
the
delay
in
registering FIR in motor accident cases,
held as under:-

"17. It is well settled that delay in
lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to
doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the
Indian conditions as they are, we cannot
expect a common man to first rush to the
police
station
immediately
after
an
accident.
Human
nature
and
family
responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and
kin to such an extent that they give more
importance to get the victim treated rather
than to rush to the police station. Under
such circumstances, they are not expected
to act mechanically with promptitude in
lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in
lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground
to deny justice to the victim.

18. In cases of delay, the courts
are required to examine the evidence with a
closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents
of the FIR should also be scrutinised more
carefully. If the court finds that there is no
indication of fabrication or it has not been
concocted or engineered to implicate
innocent persons then, even if there is a
delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case
cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.
The purpose of lodging the FIR in such
type of cases is primarily to intimate the
police to initiate investigation of criminal
offences.

19. Lodging of FIR certainly
proves the factum of accident so that the
victim is able to lodge a case for
compensation but delay in doing so cannot
be the main ground for rejecting the claim
petition. In other words, although lodging
of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident
10 All. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt Sudha Kumari & Ors.
215
claim cases, delay in lodging the same
should not be treated as fatal for such
proceedings, if claimant has been able to
demonstrate
satisfactory
and
cogent
reasons for it. There could be a variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed
lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of
the victim are able to regain a certain level
of tranquillity of mind and are composed to
lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same
deserves
to
be
condoned.
In
such
circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR
assumes much more significance than delay
in lodging thereof supported by cogent
reasons."

8. The claimants examined the widow
of the deceased Smt. Sudha Kumari as PW1 and eye witness Bhagwan Das as PW-2.
PW-1 very fairly admitted that she was not
an eye witness of the accident. PW-2
deposed that he saw the accident which
occurred on 12.11.2018 at 01:00 PM when
the deceased was waiting by the roadside
for conveyance to go to his village, then
from the side of the village Killi, Loader
No.UP-75-K-9134 came and at the same
time some cows came in front of the
offending Loader, and in order to save
them, the driver of the loader lost control of
the vehicle, which hit the deceased by the
roadside and overturned. He deposed that
he gave information to the police on
number 100. The police came and took the
deceased to District Hospital Etawah, from
there he was referred to PGI Safai, where
he died during treatment.

9. It is apparent that neither the owner
nor the driver of the offending loader have
appeared in the witness box to contradict
the claim. No independent evidence has
been led by the insurance company to
dispute the factum of accident. Since this
petition has been filed under Section 163-A
of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants
are not required to prove the negligence of
the offending vehicle.

10. In view of the above evidence, the
tribunal has not erred in concluding that the
accident took place involving Loader
No.UP-75K-9134 in which the deceased
Nand Kishore died, due to the injuries
suffered in the accident. According to the
claimants there was no negligence of any
person, as such, the FIR was not registered
and only an information was given to the
police station Basrehar on the basis of
which G.D. Entry No.31 was recorded on
29.11.2018. In these facts, the claimants
successfully proved the factum of accident
and accordingly, the tribunal has not erred
in fastening the liability on the insurer of
the offending vehicle.

11. It is also apparent that the claim
petition was filed under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act on 09.01.2019, the
accident occurred on 12.11.2018. The
tribunal
considered
that
there
is
a
notification
No.S.O.
2022(E)
of
the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
dated 22.05.2018 which has amended the
Second Schedule of the Act, which
mandates that in a claim petition under
Section 163A, in death cases, compensation
of Rs.5 lacs is to be awarded and on the
basis of this notification, in the instant case,
the tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.5 lacs. Besides this, the tribunal has
awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs.15,000/- each for loss of
estate and funeral expenses. In this way, the
tribunal has awarded a total compensation
of Rs.5,70,000/- to the claimants alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
insurance company has challenged the
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
above compensation on the ground that the
tribunal has erred in granting Rs.70,000/-
under conventional heads and this could
not have been granted to the claimants.

13. It is apparent that after an
amendment
by
notification
dated
22.05.2018 in Second Schedule of the Act,
for death cases under Section 163A of the
Motor Vehicles Act in no fault cases, the
amount of compensation which is to be
paid is Rs.5 lacs, but this section as well as
the Second Schedule is silent as to whether
compensation under other conventional
heads can be granted or not. Subsequently,
the Second Schedule was omitted w.e.f.
01.09.2019.

14. Rule 220-A of the Uttar Pradesh
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998(amended w.e.f
26.09.2011) reads as under:-

220-A.
Determination
of
compensation.-(1)
The
multiplier
for
determination of loss of income payable as
compensation in all the claim cases shall
be applied as per Second Schedule
provided in the Act.

(2) Deduction for personal and
living expenses of a deceased, shall be as
follows-

(i)
The
deduction
towards
personal expenses of a deceased unmarried
shall be 50%. Where the family of a
bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased, the deduction shall
be 1/3 (33.33%).

(ii)
The
deduction
towards
personal and living expenses of a married
person deceased shall be 1 /3rd where
dependent family members are 2 to 3 in
number, l/4th where dependent family
members are 4 to 6 in number and l/5th
where dependent family members are more
than 6 in number.

(iii)
For
the
purpose
of
calculation of number of family members in
clause (ii) a minor dependent will be
counted as half.

(3) The future prospects of a
deceased, shall be added in the actual
salary or minimum wages of the deceased
as under-

(i) Below 40 years of age : 50%
of the salary.

(ii) Between 40-50 years of age :
30% of the salary.

(iii) More than 50 years of age :
20% of the salary.

(iv) When wages not sufficiently
proved : 50% towards inflation and price
index.

(4) The non-pecuniary damages
shall also be payable in the compensation
as follows-

(i) Compensation for loss of
estate: Rs. 5000 to Rs. 10,000.

(ii) Compensation for loss of
consortium: Rs. 5000 to 10,000.

(ii) Compensation for loss of love
and affection: Rs. 5000 to Rs. 15,000.

(iv) Funeral expenses, costs of
transportation of body; Rs. 5000 or actual
expenses whichever is less.

(v) Medical expenses : actual
expenses proved to the satisfaction of the
Claims Tribunal.
10 All. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt Sudha Kumari & Ors.
217

(5)
For
determination
of
compensation in case of injuries, partial or
permanent disability provisions of Second
Schedule of the Act shall apply:

Provided
that
the
Claims
Tribunal may also award compensation for
future prospects according to sub-rule (3)
in case of permanent disability depending
upon the nature, extent and its effect on the
future of disabled claimants.

(6) The rate of interest shall be
7%pendente lite and future till the actual
payment.

15. It is apparent that as per Rule 220A(4) of the above Rules, in all cases, non
pecuniary damages shall also be payable in
the compensation, as follows-

(i) Compensation for loss of
estate: Rs. 5000 to Rs. 10,000.

(ii) Compensation for loss of
consortium: Rs. 5000 to 10,000.

(iii) Compensation for loss of
love and affection: Rs. 5000 to Rs. 15,000.

(iv) Funeral expenses, costs of
transportation of body; Rs. 5000 or actual
expenses whichever is less.

(v) Medical expenses : actual
expenses proved to the satisfaction of the
Claims Tribunal.

16. There is no differentiation insofar
as the payment of non pecuniary damages
is concerned in claim cases filed u/s 166 or
163A or 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. There is no specific bar that non
pecuniary damages are not to be awarded in
claim cases filed u/s 163A or 164 of the
Motor Vehicles Act,1988.

17. The Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.(2018)
18 SCC 130 has awarded Rs.40,000/- each
towards
loss
of
spousal
consortium,
parental consortium and filial consortium,
following
the
Constitutional
Bench
decision of the Apex Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680.

18. When the above legal provisions
and precedents are applied to the instant
case, then, in accordance with Rule 220A(4) of the above Rules, the claimants are
entitled to the following compensation, as
non pecuniary damages-
S.No.
Heads
Compensation
Awarded(in
Rs.)
1.
Compensation
for loss of
estate.
10,000/-
2.
Compensation
for loss of
spousal
consortium @
Rs.10,000/- to
the widow.
10,000/-
3.
Compensation
for loss of
parental
consortium to
five minor
children of
deceased @
Rs.10,000/-
each.
50,000/-
4.
Compensation
for loss of love
and affection.
15,000/-
5.
Funeral
expenses and
costs of
transportation of
5,000/-
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
body.

Total
90,000/-

19. In the instant case, the tribunal has
only awarded Rs.70,000/- to the claimants
towards non pecuniary damages, which is
less than the amount of Rs. 90,000/- to
which they are entitled, which cannot be
reduced any further and cannot be said to
be erroneous.

20. The Division Bench of this Court
in the case of United India Insurance
Co.Ltd. vs. Smt. Sawari & Ors.. FAFO
No.614 of 2019 decided on 20.09.2022 has
held as under:-

15.
The
issue
was
further
examined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v.
Gurumallamma and others (2009) 16 SCC
43 wherein it was opined that in a
proceeding under Section 163A of the Act
the amount of compensation has to be
assessed in terms of Second Schedule
attached to the Act. Relevant paragraph 8
thereof is extracted below:-

"8.
...........
As
the
Second
Schedule provides for a structured formula,
the question of determination of payment of
compensation by application of judicial
mind which is otherwise necessary for a
proceeding arising out of a claim petition
filed under Section 166 would not arise.
The Tribunals in a proceeding under
Section 163-A of the Act is required to
determine the amount of compensation as
specified in the Second Schedule. It is not
required to apply the multiplier except in a
case of injuries and disabilities." (emphasis
supplied)

16. In United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar and others 2017
SCC Online SC 1443, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court while considering the question
whether in a claim proceeding under
Section 163A of the Act, it is open for the
Insurer to raise the defence/plea of
negligence, held following in paragraphs 7
and 8 which read as under:-

7. As observed in Hansrajbhai V.
Kodala (supra) one of the suggestions
made by the Transport Development
Council
was
"to
provide
adequate
compensation to victims of road accidents
without going into long drawn procedure."
As a sequel to the recommendations made
by the Committee and the Council, Section
140 was enacted in the present Act in place
of Section 92A to 92E of the Old Act.
Compensation payable thereunder, as
under the repealed provisions, continued to
be on the basis of no fault liability though
at an enhanced rate which was further
enhanced by subsequent amendments.
Sections 140 and 141 of the present Act
makes it clear that compensation payable
thereunder does not foreclose the liability
to pay or the right to receive compensation
under any other provision of the Act or any
other law in force except compensation
awarded under Section 163A of the Act.
Compensation under Section 140 of the Act
was thus understood to be in the nature of
an interim payment pending the final
award under Section 166 of the Act.
Section 163-A, on the other hand, was
introduced in the New Act for the first time
to
remedy
the
situation
where
determination of final compensation on
fault basis under Section 166 of the Act was
progressively
getting
protracted.
The
Legislative intent and purpose was to
provide for payment of final compensation
to a class of claimants (whose income was
below Rs.40,000/- per annum) on the basis
of a structured formula without any
10 All. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt Sudha Kumari & Ors.
219
reference to fault liability. In fact, in
Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra) the bench
had occasion to observe that:

"Compensation amount is paid
without pleading or proof of fault, on the
principle of social justice as a social
security
measure
because
of
everincreasing motor vehicle accidents in a
fast-moving society. Further, the law before
insertion of Section 163-A was giving
limited benefit to the extent provided under
Section 140 for no-fault liability and
determination of compensation amount on
fault liability was taking a long time. That
mischief is sought to be remedied by
introducing Section 163-A and the disease
of delay is sought to be cured to a large
extent by affording benefit to the victims on
structured-formula basis. Further, if the
question of determining compensation on
fault liability is kept alive it would result in
additional litigation and complications in
case claimants fail to establish liability of
the owner of the defaulting vehicles."

8. From the above discussion, it
is clear that grant of compensation under
Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the
structured formula is in the nature of a
final
award
and
the
adjudication
thereunder is required to be made without
any requirement of any proof of negligence
of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s)
involved in the accident. This is made
explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the
aforesaid section of the Act does not
specifically exclude a possible defence of
the Insurer based on the negligence of the
claimant as contemplated by Section
140(4), to permit such defence to be
introduced by the Insurer and/or to
understand the provisions of Section 163A
of the Act to be contemplating any such
situation would go contrary to the very
legislative object behind introduction of
Section 163A of the Act, namely, final
compensation within a limited time frame
on the basis of the structured formula to
overcome situations where the claims of
compensation on the basis of fault liability
was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to
understand Section 163A of the Act to
permit the Insurer to raise the defence of
negligence would be to bring a proceeding
under Section 163-A of the Act at par with
the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act
which would not only be self-contradictory
but also defeat the very legislative
intention.

17. Again Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Ramkhiladi and others v. The
United India Insurance Company and
others (2020)2 SCC 550 has in paragraph
5.8 held as under:-

"5.8. ..... However, it is the case
on behalf of the original claimants that
there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule
and a fixed amount of Rs.5 lakh has been
specified in case of death and therefore the
claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The
same cannot be accepted. In the present
case, the accident took place in the year
2006 and even the Judgment and Award
was passed by the learned Tribunal in the
year 2009, and the impugned Judgment and
Order has been passed by the High Court
in 10.05.2018, i.e. much prior to the
amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the
facts and circumstance of the present case,
the claimants shall not be entitled to the
benefit of the amendment to the 2nd
Schedule. ..."

18. Similar view was expressed
by the Division Bench of Calcutta High
Court in The New India Assurance
Company v. Jasmin Bibi FMAT No.769 of
2015, decided on 2.3.2016 and Sikkim High
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court in The Branch Manager, Shriram
General Insurance Company Limited v.
Dilurai MAC Application No.10 of 2018,
decided on 4.4.2022 and Division Bench of
this Court in Oriental Insurance Company
Limited v. Smt. Maya 2017(8) ADJ 92.

19. A perusal of the judgment of
learned Single Judge in Smt. Jagdish
Kumari's case (supra), which has taken a
different view than what has been taken by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hansrajbhai
V. Kodala's, Deepal Girishbhai Soni's,
Gurumallamma's and Sunil Kumar's
cases (supra), shows that it had not
considered the aforesaid judgments and
held even for assessment of compensation
under Section 163A, instead of structured
formula, normal assessment is to be made.
Whereas in Asif's case (supra), the learned
Single Judge, after placing reliance on the
aforesaid
judgments
of
Hon'ble
the
Supreme Court, had granted compensation
on the basis of structured formula as
provided in Second Schedule attached to
the Act.

21. It is apparent that in the above
judgment of the Division Bench, the effect
of Rule 220-A of the Rules of 1998, the
Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra)
and
Magma
General
Insurance
Co.Ltd.(supra) has not been considered.
The judgment also does not deal with grant
of compensation under non pecuniary
heads in claim petition filed u/s 163A of
164 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.

22. For the aforesaid reasons, the
tribunal has not erred in awarding total
compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants,
warranting interference from this Court in
exercise of it?s appellate jurisdiction.

23. Accordingly, this appeal is
meritless and is dismissed at the
admission stage. The impugned judgment
and award of the tribunal dated 16.06.2025
is affirmed.

24. Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the
tribunal concerned, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 220
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2459 of 2025

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Smt Jyoti & Ors. ... Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Abhinav Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal committed any legal or factual
error in determining the number of dependents
and awarding consortium and other heads of
compensation particularly in treating each
dependent
as
a
full
unit
and
granting
consortium of ₹40,000/- per claimant such that
the impugned judgment and award dated
08.08.2025 warranted interference u/s 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act at the instance of the
insurer.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - Uttar
Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R.
220 - A - The case arises from a motor
accident that occurred on 15.01.2023 on
the Milak-Bilaspur Road, District Rampur,
wherein Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 27