Grievously injured claimants may receive Section 164 compensation for pre-amendment accidents.

In brief

The question

Whether the claimant was entitled to the benefit of the amended Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, although the accident occurred before that provision came into force.

The court held

The Court answered the issue in the affirmative and allowed the appeal.

It also directed

It modified the Tribunal’s award, granting total compensation of ₹2,50,000 instead of ₹98,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition until realization, excluding the period of delay specified in the order dated 6 January 2026. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation and accrued interest before the jurisdictional Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

01Facts

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in MVC No. 200/2014.

p. 2

The accident occurred on 31 December 2012, and the claimant suffered injuries, which the Tribunal treated as grievous; relying on the medical evidence, it assessed disability at 13%.

pp. 2–3

The Tribunal awarded ₹98,000: ₹78,000 for loss of future income, ₹5,000 for pain and suffering, and ₹15,000 for medical expenses.

p. 3

The claimant sought ₹2,50,000 under Section 164, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramamurthy and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the claimant was entitled to the benefit of the amended Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, although the accident occurred before that provision came into force.

p. 4

03Law Applied

Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides compensation of ₹5,00,000 in case of death and ₹2,50,000 in case of grievous hurt.

p. 5

Relying on Ramamurthy and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Criminal Appeal No. 7143/2022, the Court applied the principle that claimants may receive the benefit of these beneficial provisions even where the accident predates their enactment.

pp. 4–5

The Court also noted that coordinate Benches of the High Court had followed that approach in Laxmi v. Durgappa, Siddhappa v. Mohan, Babu v. Mallikarjun S. Ramadurg, and Santosh v. Mahesh and Others.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

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

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the accident occurred before Section 164 came into force, as the respondents contended, but held that this did not preclude the claimant from receiving the benefit of the provision.

p. 4

Applying the Supreme Court’s approach to beneficial provisions and noting its adoption by coordinate Benches, the Court concluded that the claimant was entitled to ₹2,50,000 for grievous injuries.

pp. 5–6