For grievous motor-accident injuries, Section 164(2) provides ₹2.5 lakh no-fault compensation.

The appellant, Bhimsinh Devubha Sodha, was employed as the driver of a Qualis car bearing registration no. GJ-7-R-9078. On 21 August 2007, while travelling towards Gandhidham, the Qualis was involved in a collision with a truck bearing registration no. GJ-9-T-5221, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Opponent No. 1. The appellant sustained multiple and serious injuries.

An FIR was lodged against the appellant by the truck driver. The appellant filed MACP No. 303 of 2008 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming Rs.7,83,400 against the truck’s driver, owner and insurer, and the Qualis’s owner and insurer.

The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,56,000, fastening liability partly upon Opponents Nos. 1–3 and partly upon Opponents Nos. 4–5, while calculating compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

The claimant challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation under the no-fault liability framework applicable to a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, without proving wrongful act, negligence or fault?

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was required to be enhanced in light of Section 164(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, providing Rs.2,50,000 for grievous hurt?

Whether the owners and insurers of both the offending truck and the Qualis car were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, particularly where the Qualis policy covered the risk of its paid driver?

The Court applied Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which compensation is payable on the basis of the structured formula and the claimant need not plead or establish wrongful act, negligence or fault on the part of the vehicle owner or driver.

It further relied on Section 164(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes compensation of Rs.2,50,000 for grievous hurt arising from the use of a motor vehicle, and on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983, concerning the application of Section 164.

The Court also relied on Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd./o. Late Laxmanbhai Ramsangbhai Thakore (Koli) v. Kandla Dock Labour Board & Anr., 2021 ACJ 2262, for the principle that coverage of the paid driver under the vehicle insurance policy entitled the claimant to recover compensation from the relevant owner and insurer.

The Court found that the appellant’s injuries were established through the injury and disability certificates at Exhibits 28 and 40.

Since the claim was under Section 163-A, the appellant was not required to establish negligence, notwithstanding that the FIR had been lodged against him.

The Court also noted that the insurers of both vehicles had not challenged the Tribunal’s findings on liability.

Applying Section 164(2), the Court treated Rs.2,50,000 as the appropriate compensation for the appellant’s grievous hurt and sustained the finding that both sets of vehicle owners and insurers were liable.

Because the Qualis policy included premium for coverage of the paid driver, its owner and insurer were also held liable. The total liability was accordingly divided equally between the truck-side respondents and the Qualis-side respondents, at Rs.1,25,000 each.

The appellant was held entitled to recover Rs.1,25,000 jointly and severally from Opponents Nos. 1–3, being the driver, owner and insurer of the truck, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

He was separately entitled to recover Rs.1,25,000 jointly and severally from Opponents Nos. 4–5, being the owner and insurer of the Qualis, with the same interest.

Both insurers were directed to deposit the payable amounts before the Tribunal within eight weeks, after giving credit for amounts already deposited.