Gujarat High Court retrospectively applies Section 164’s ₹5 lakh death compensation to a 2010 accident claim, holding all vehicle parties jointly liable

On 28 June 2010, Gokulbhai Mangabhai Rathod was travelling in an autorickshaw when it collided with a tempo allegedly being driven rashly and negligently.

He sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. An FIR was registered at Bardoli Police Station.

The claimant filed a compensation petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming ₹5,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹2,89,500 with 9% interest, while apportioning negligence between the vehicles and exonerating the tempo driver, owner and insurer from liability.

The claimant challenged that decision in the present appeal.

Whether, in a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal could apportion liability between the vehicles on the basis of respective negligence and thereby exonerate the tempo driver, owner and insurer?

Whether the compensation payable for the deceased’s death should be enhanced to ₹5,00,000 under the statutory compensation framework, notwithstanding that the accident occurred before the subsequent statutory enhancement?

Whether the claimant was entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization?

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides a special, no-fault mechanism for compensation on a structured-formula basis and, by virtue of Section 163A(2), the claimant need not plead or establish wrongful act, neglect or default of the vehicle owner or any other person.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Raj Kumar Das (D) Thr. LRs v. National Insurance Company, 2026(0) AIJEL-SC 77051, was relied upon for the principle that negligence need not be proved in a Section 163A claim and that the inquiry is limited to whether the injury or death is reasonably connected with the use of the motor vehicle.

The Court also relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983, which treated the enhanced fixed compensation under Section 164 as beneficial legislation capable of retrospective application where no specific bar exists.

The Court further applied the principle that motor accident claims are decided on the preponderance of probabilities and do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court held that the FIR and other material undisputedly established the involvement of both the tempo and the autorickshaw in the accident.

However, because the claim was founded on Section 163A, the claimant was not required to prove negligence, and the Tribunal’s exercise of apportioning negligence between the vehicles was legally irrelevant.

Consequently, the Tribunal could not exonerate the tempo driver, owner and insurer on the ground that the autorickshaw driver was negligent.

Applying the beneficial-legislation principle recognised in Urmila Halder, the Court held that the compensation should be computed at the enhanced statutory amount of ₹5,00,000, while retaining the Tribunal’s award of 9% interest from the date of the claim petition.

The Tribunal’s judgment was set aside insofar as it exonerated opponents Nos. 2 and 3.

All opponents were held jointly and severally liable to pay ₹5,00,000 to the claimant, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire compensation and accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after due verification and deduction of applicable court fees.