A Section 163A claim is not barred solely by income exceeding the Second Schedule ceiling.

On 27 October 2011, Mohammed Aslam was injured when his motorcycle allegedly collided with a Maruti car.

He sought compensation for his injuries and treatment expenses.

The claim, originally filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was treated by the Tribunal as a claim under Section 163A.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,90,000 with interest at 9% per annum.

The insurer appealed, challenging the claim’s maintainability, the proof of the accident, and the assessment of compensation.

Whether a claim initially filed under Section 166 could be treated or converted as a claim under Section 163A

Whether the claimant’s pleaded annual income of Rs. 1,59,420, exceeding the Rs. 40,000 figure in the Second Schedule, made the Section 163A claim non-maintainable

Whether the non-exhibition of the complaint, FIR and charge-sheet prevented the claimant from establishing the accident

Whether the Tribunal’s award required interference because it did not adhere strictly to the structured formula under Section 163A

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides a no-fault compensation framework associated with the structured formula in the Second Schedule; Section 166 provides a separate route for claims based on fault.

The Court held that an eligible Section 166 claim is not, as an absolute rule, incapable of being treated as a Section 163A claim, provided the statutory requirements are met.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj, (2009) 13 SCC 508, it treated the income figure in the Second Schedule as not necessarily an absolute bar in every case and emphasised the objective of awarding just compensation.

Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 11042 of 2018, supported the proposition that a claim need not fail solely because relevant documents were not formally exhibited where the material facts were otherwise established.

The Court also relied on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, regarding defects in the Second Schedule and its use as a guide, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, on fair and realistic compensation.

It applied Raj Kumar Das (D) Thr. Lrs. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 930, for the principle that the Schedule should not be applied mechanically where that would deny just compensation.

The Court rejected the challenge to conversion, holding that Section 166 proceedings could, in an appropriate case, be treated as proceedings under Section 163A.

It found that the pleaded income exceeding Rs. 40,000 did not, by itself, require dismissal of the claim, relying on Smt. Saroj and the requirement of just compensation.

The insurer’s written statement disputed negligence rather than the occurrence of the accident, and its cross-examination suggestion that the claimant caused the accident likewise proceeded on the basis that an accident had occurred.

In those circumstances, the absence of formally exhibited police documents was not fatal.

Finally, the Court considered the Tribunal’s awards for treatment, travel, pain and suffering, future treatment and future loss, and found no demonstrated illegality or material irregularity warranting appellate interference.

The insurer was directed to deposit or pay the awarded amount within two months; failing compliance, the claimant could pursue execution in accordance with law.