Negligence Need Not Be Proved for Compensation Claims Filed Under Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act

The Respondent, a 24-year-old labourer, was injured on December 29, 2022, when an S.T. bus owned by the Appellant Corporation collided with his motorcycle on the Pen-Khopoli Road.

The Respondent sustained a fracture to the D-12 vertebra, resulting in 20% permanent disability.

He filed a claim petition under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Alibag, awarded him Rs. 2,50,000/- with 9% interest per annum.

The Appellant challenged this, contending that the Respondent’s negligence caused the accident and that the nature of the injuries was not sufficiently proved.

1. Whether a claimant under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act is required to plead or establish wrongful act, neglect, or default of the vehicle owner or driver.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT for "grievous hurt" was in accordance with the statutory caps provided under the Act.

Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as substituted by the 2019 Amendment), which establishes "no-fault liability" for death (Rs. 5 lakhs) or grievous hurt (Rs. 2.5 lakhs).

The Supreme Court precedent in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar (2019), which held that in proceedings under the structured formula (Section 163-A, now mirrors Section 164), the insurer cannot raise the defense of negligence on the part of the victim.

Gohar Mohammed v. U.P. SRTC (2023), confirming that Section 164 limits liability to fixed sums irrespective of fault.

The court reasoned that Section 164(2) explicitly removes the burden from the claimant to prove negligence or wrongful conduct by the driver.

The court found that the Respondent provided sufficient evidence—including the FIR, spot panchanama, and a disability certificate from Dr. Sathe—proving he suffered a D-12 vertebra fracture and 20% permanent disability.

Since these injuries constitute "grievous hurt" and the accident's occurrence was undisputed, the statutory cap of Rs. 2,50,000/- applied automatically.

The court rejected the Appellant’s attempt to introduce the defense of the victim's negligence, noting that such a defense is legally barred in claims brought under the "no-fault" provisions of Section 164.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the MACT's award, directing the Appellant to pay the balance compensation amount, including interest at 9% p.a., within three weeks.