Rekha vs Angrej And Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-7193-2025
Rekha . . . . Appellant
Vs.
Angrej and Others . . . . Respondents

Reserved on: 07.09.2026
Pronounced on: 08.09.2026
Pronounced fully/opera 3ve part: Fully

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate for the appellant.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensa $on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Panipat (hereina)er referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award dated
03.10.2024.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant filed a claim pe$$on
under Sec$on 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina)er referred to
as 'the Act') on account of the death of Aakash @ Vipin, who died in a motor
vehicular accident on 30.07.2019. The deceased was travelling as a pillion
rider on motorcycle bearing registra$on No. HR-60E-0696. Upon apprecia$on
of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the death had occurred on account of
the use of the aforesaid motorcycle. The deceased was found to be 19 years
of age and his annual income was assessed at ₹40,000/-.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid income, the Tribunal, applying the
mul$plier of 18 and making deduc$on of one-third towards personal
expenses, assessed the loss of dependency at ₹4,80,000/-. It further awarded
₹2,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹2,500/- towards loss of estate,
thereby arriving at a total compensa$on of ₹4,84,500/-. However, keeping in
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.08 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-7193-2025
view the statutory regime applicable to the claim and the compensa $on
prescribed in case of death under the no-fault scheme, the Tribunal awarded
₹5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim pe$$on $ll realiza$on.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
erred in trea$ng ₹5,00,000/- as the maximum compensa$on payable.
According to learned counsel, the amount of ₹5,00,000/- prescribed under
the statutory no-fault regime is the compensa$on payable on account of
death and does not preclude an award of addi$onal amounts under
conven$onal heads, par$cularly loss of consor$um, funeral expenses and loss
of estate. Reliance has primarily been placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v.
Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, (2022) 1 SCC 317.
5. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no merit in
the appeal.
6. The ques $on which arises for considera$on is narrow, namely,
whether, in a claim pe$$on ins$tuted under Sec$on 163-A of the Act, the
claimant can seek amounts under conven$onal heads over and above
₹5,00,000/-, so as to exceed the amount prescribed under the statutory no-
fault/structured-formula regime.
7. The dis$nc$on between a claim under Sec$on 166 and one
under Sec$on 163-A of the Act assumes significance in this regard. A claim
under Sec$on 166 requires determina$on of 'just compensa$on' on the basis
of the evidence on record and the principles evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, including those rela$ng to loss of dependency, future prospects and
conven$onal heads. Sec$on 163-A, on the other hand, provides a special no-
fault remedy under which compensa$on is determined in accordance with
the statutory formula, without requiring the claimant to plead or establish
wrongful act, neglect or default.
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.08 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 2 of Total 6 pages

FAO-7193-2025
8. Thus, the two remedies operate in different statutory fields.
While Sec $on 166 is founded upon the concept of determina$on of 'just
compensa$on', Sec$on 163-A provides a structured statutory basis for
determina$on of compensa$on. Having elected to invoke the laGer remedy,
the claimant cannot import into it the principles governing assessment of
compensa$on under Sec$on 166 in a manner which would defeat the limits
prescribed by the statutory scheme.
9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the claim pe$$on
itself was filed under Sec$on 163-A of the Act. The Tribunal accordingly
proceeded to determine the compensa$on on the basis of the structured
formula. On the income assessed at ₹40,000/- per annum, a)er deduc$on
towards personal expenses and applica$on of the appropriate mul$plier, the
Tribunal arrived at ₹4,84,500/- including the amounts awarded under funeral
expenses and loss of estate. It therea)er no$ced that the statutory
compensa$on payable in the event of death was ₹5,00,000/- and, being the
higher amount, awarded the same to the claimant.
10. The conten$on of learned counsel for the appellant that
conven$onal heads are required to be added over and above ₹5,00,000/-
cannot be accepted. Such an approach would, in effect, convert the statutory
amount into a mere base amount and permit compensa$on to travel beyond
the maximum prescribed limit under the structured-formula regime. Such an
interpreta$on would render the statutory limit o$ose and would amount to
adding words to the legisla$on.
11. The reliance placed upon Kurvan Ansari (supra) does not
advance the case of the appellant. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was dealing with a claim under Sec $on 163-A arising out of an accident which
had occurred in the year 2004 and the compensa$on was determined with
reference to the statutory framework then applicable. The Court assessed
the no$onal income of the deceased child at ₹25,000/- per annum, applied
the mul$plier of 15 and awarded ₹3,75,000/- towards loss of dependency,
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.08 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 3 of Total 6 pages

FAO-7193-2025
besides amounts under the conven $onal heads, resul$ng in total
compensa$on of ₹4,70,000/-.
12. The decision in Kurvan Ansari (supra), however, was not
concerned with the precise ques $on arising for considera$on in the present
appeal, namely, whether amounts under conven$onal heads can be awarded
over and above a statutory maximum of ₹5,00,000/- prescribed under the
subsequently applicable no-fault statutory regime. The judgment, therefore,
cannot be construed as laying down an absolute proposi$on that every claim
under Sec$on 163-A necessarily permits addi$on of conven$onal heads over
and above the statutory ceiling.
13. This aspect has subsequently been considered by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in Asha and another v. Na !onal Insurance Company Ltd.
and others, FAO-6555-2025 (O&M), decided on 17.04.2026 . A )er
considering the statutory scheme and the relevant authori$es, the
coordinate Bench held that in a claim pe$$on filed under Sec$on 163-A/the
corresponding statutory no-fault regime, the claimants are en$tled to a
maximum compensa$on of ₹5,00,000/- in accordance with the structured
formula contained in the Second Schedule. The Bench relied upon, inter alia,
the Division Bench judgment of the CalcuGa High Court in
Urmila Halder v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd . : Law Finder Doc Id # 1250725 , the judgment
of this Court in Na !onal Insurance Company Limited through Assistant
Manager v. Kamlesh Kumari and others, FAO-705-2003, decided on
05.03.2020 , and the judgment of the Gauha $ High Court in Na !onal
Insurance Company Limited v. Bijaya Bhuyan and others, (2018) 5 GLT 72 .
14. The coordinate Bench in Asha (supra) also no $ced the judgment
of this Court in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh , Law
Finder Doc ID # 2224117, wherein it was held that compensa $on under
Sec$on 163-A has to adhere to the structured formula, including the
prescribed limits in respect of funeral expenses, loss of estate and
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.08 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 4 of Total 6 pages

FAO-7193-2025
consor $um, and that the compensa$on in a death claim cannot exceed
₹5,00,000/-.
15. The same principle was no$ced by this Court in Farrukh v. Sale
Khan (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2224013, wherein the
claimant had sought enhancement by placing reliance upon Kurvan Ansari
(supra). The subsequent decisions, therefore, make it clear that Kurvan
Ansari cannot be understood as authorising an award beyond the maximum
prescribed limit under the statutory structured-formula regime.
16. The principle is also consistent with the dis $nc$on between
Sec$ons 163-A and 166 of the Act. The decisions in Na !onal Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, laying down principles regarding future
prospects and conven $onal heads, operate in the context of determina$on
of 'just compensa$on' under Sec$on 166. They cannot be applied in
deroga$on of the specific statutory limita$ons governing a claim under
Sec$on 163-A.
17. It is, therefore, not permissible for a claimant to invoke the
beneficial features of the structured no-fault remedy while, at the same $me,
seeking to supplement the compensa$on by impor$ng the principles
applicable to a claim under Sec$on 166. The two statutory remedies have
dis$nct fields of opera$on and their respec$ve principles cannot be
intermixed in such a manner.
18. In the present case, the Tribunal has, in fact, already granted the
claimant the benefit of the higher amount. On the structured computa$on,
the compensa$on came to ₹4,84,500/-, whereas the Tribunal awarded
₹5,00,000/- keeping in view the statutory amount applicable in the case of
death. Thus, the claimant has not been confined to the amount arrived at by
applying the mul$plier and making the prescribed deduc$ons; rather, the
Tribunal has awarded the higher statutory amount.
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.08 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 5 of Total 6 pages

FAO-7193-2025
19. Once the compensa $on payable under the applicable statutory
regime has been determined at ₹5,00,000/-, no further amount under
conven$onal heads can be added so as to take the total compensa$on
beyond the prescribed maximum. Accep$ng the appellant's conten$on
would effec$vely render the statutory ceiling meaningless.
20. This Court is also bound to take note of the recent decision of
the coordinate Bench in Asha (supra), which directly deals with the same
controversy and, a )er considering Kurvan Ansari (supra) and the other
relevant authori $es, has reiterated that the maximum compensa$on payable
under the structured-formula/no-fault regime is ₹5,00,000/-. In the absence
of any contrary binding pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
precise issue involved herein, the said view deserves to be followed.
21. Consequently, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
appellant upon Kurvan Ansari (supra) is misplaced. The said judgment does
not lay down that the amount of ₹5,00,000/- prescribed under the applicable
statutory regime is merely a minimum amount to which conven $onal heads
must invariably be added. The compensa$on in the present case having
already been enhanced by the Tribunal to ₹5,00,000/-, no further
enhancement is warranted.
22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no infirmity in the
impugned award insofar as the quantum of compensa$on is concerned. The
appeal, seeking further enhancement by awarding amounts under
conven$onal heads over and above ₹5,00,000/-, is accordingly dismissed.
23. Pending miscellaneous applica$on(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of accordingly.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
08.09.2026
Nee ka Tuteja
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Uploaded on.: 08.09.2026
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.08 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 6 of Total 6 pages