An insurer cannot belatedly challenge a Section 163-A claim where the policy covers the pillion rider’s risk.

On 6 September 2017, Bhavati Netam was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle owned by her son and driven by her nephew. She fell when the motorcycle lurched on a rugged road, sustained a serious head injury, and died during treatment on 10 September 2017.

Her husband filed a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹4,73,650. The insurer appealed, contending that the claim was not maintainable; the claimant filed cross-objections seeking enhancement.

1. Whether the insurer could challenge the maintainability of the Section 163-A claim on appeal where it had not raised that objection before the Tribunal and the policy covered the pillion rider’s risk.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s compensation award required enhancement, particularly in light of the income attributed to the deceased.

The claim was brought under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court considered the insurance policy’s coverage of the pillion rider and noted that the insurer had neither pleaded nor raised a maintainability objection before the Tribunal.

In assessing compensation, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for future prospects and conventional heads; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the deduction towards personal expenses and multiplier; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, in relation to consortium.

The deceased was a pillion rider, and the policy was found to cover pillion-rider risk. Since the insurer had not raised maintainability before the Tribunal, the Court rejected its attempt to introduce that objection for the first time on appeal.

On the cross-objections, the Court found the Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of ₹4,500 too low. In the absence of income evidence, it assessed monthly income at ₹7,930, the applicable minimum wage for an unskilled worker. Applying a 15% addition for future prospects, a one-half deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, the Court calculated dependency compensation at ₹7,11,321. It left the amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium unchanged.

It enhanced the total compensation from ₹4,73,650 to ₹7,81,321, with the additional ₹3,07,671 carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim application was filed until realization. The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left intact.