Bus Driver With 60% Permanent Disability Gets ₹2.5 Lakh As P&H HC Applies Section 164 To His Section 163-A Claim

On 14 June 1999, Gurnam Singh, a Haryana Roadways driver, was injured when the bus he was driving skidded off a slippery road and struck a tree.

He sustained multiple fractures in both legs and was assessed as having 60% permanent disability.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹30,453.20 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but declined compensation for loss of future earning capacity because he continued to receive the same salary.

The insurer appealed, disputing liability on the grounds that Singh’s driving licence was invalid and the bus was covered only by an Act Only Policy; Singh cross-appealed seeking enhancement

Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act requires an insurance policy to cover an employer’s liability under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, for bodily injury to an employee engaged in driving the insured vehicle; any wider contractual coverage may depend on the policy terms and additional premium

Under National Insurance Company Limited v. Prembai Patel, (2005) 6 SCC 172, and Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2012) 13 SCC 174, an Act Only Policy provides the statutory coverage applicable to an employee, while liability beyond that coverage depends on the insurance contract and any additional premium

The court also applied Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, treating its fixed no-fault compensation for grievous hurt as available in a claim instituted under Section 163-A, following Ram Murti v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2023 ACJ 631, and this Court’s decision in Hardial Singh v. Mahinder Singh and others, FAO No. 3470 of 2001 (O&M), decided 31 January 2026

The insurer did not prove the alleged licence breach: the licence was in Singh’s service record, and the evidence concerning a duplicate licence did not establish that the original licence was invalid; the certificate relied on by the insurer was insufficiently authenticated

Although the policy was an Act Only Policy and no additional premium had been paid, Singh was an employee driving the insured bus in the course of his employment, so the insurer could not avoid the statutory liability applicable to an employee-driver

On compensation, the court held that Singh’s multiple fractures constituted grievous hurt and applied Section 164, as interpreted in Ram Murti and followed in Hardial Singh.

It therefore found a separate calculation of loss of earning capacity by reference to the percentage of disability unnecessary

It enhanced the compensation to ₹2,50,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation; the Tribunal’s remaining findings were left undisturbed