A victim suffering grievous hurt is entitled to ₹2.5 lakh compensation under amended Section 164.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s judgment and award were illegal or arbitrary so as to warrant interference, including whether the claimant was entitled to ₹2,50,000 for grievous injury under the amended Act.

The court held

The insurer’s appeal was dismissed, and the claimant’s appeal was allowed in part.

It also directed

The Tribunal’s award was modified to ₹2,50,000, with the enhanced compensation carrying interest at 6% per annum.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks of receiving the certified judgment and then recover the amount from the motorcycle’s owner.

01Facts

On 3 March 2022, Yamanappa Ningappa Uddappagol was riding a motorcycle when he braked to avoid a dog, lost control, and sustained multiple fractures.

p. 3

He sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

p. 3

The Tribunal awarded ₹2,49,359, comprising compensation for loss of future earnings and medical expenses.

p. 3

The insurer appealed, contending, among other things, that the claimant was himself the tortfeasor; the claimant cross-appealed seeking enhancement under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019.

pp. 3–7, 10

The High Court considered the insurer’s appeal and the claimant’s enhancement appeal together.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s judgment and award were illegal or arbitrary so as to warrant interference, including whether the claimant was entitled to ₹2,50,000 for grievous injury under the amended Act.

pp. 8–10

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the insurer to pay compensation.

p. 8

03Law Applied

Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as substituted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, provides compensation of ₹2,50,000 for grievous hurt.

p. 9

In Ram Murti v. Punjab State Electricity Board, the Supreme Court extended the benefit of the amended, beneficial compensation provisions to the appellants in that case.

pp. 9–10

The High Court also relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Smt. Pratima v. Mr. Thalkin Ahamed B.A., which applied Ram Murti in directing payment of compensation under Section 164.

p. 10

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 166 Section 163 Section 164 Section 140

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in the accident and applied the beneficial-provision reasoning in Ram Murti and Pratima to award ₹2,50,000, rather than the Tribunal’s ₹2,49,359.

pp. 9–10

It answered the question of the insurer’s liability in the affirmative and dismissed the insurer’s appeal, without separately elaborating on the insurer’s arguments that the claimant was a tortfeasor or lacked a valid driving licence.

pp. 7–8, 11–12