Pending Section 163A motor accident claims must be decided under the amended compensation schedule, Gauhati High Court rules

On 21 July 2014, Rajesh Boro was driving Zylo vehicle No. AS-01-AW-3229 when, while attempting to avoid a pedestrian at Barimakha Chowk, the vehicle went off the road and he sustained serious injuries.

Despite treatment at several medical facilities, he died on 3 August 2014 at the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital. A criminal case was registered under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC.

His wife and two minor children filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari, awarded ₹10,66,000 with interest at 6% per annum against the insurer.

Whether the amended Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, notified on 22 May 2018, applied to a pending claim under Section 163A arising from an accident that occurred on 21 July 2014?

Whether, in a claim under Section 163A, the claimants were entitled to compensation under conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate and spousal/parental consortium?

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification, particularly in respect of pain and suffering, loss of love and affection, consortium and other conventional heads?

The Court applied Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which compensation is payable on a structured-formula basis without requiring proof of fault, together with the amended Second Schedule notified on 22 May 2018, which prescribes ₹5,00,000 in the event of death.

Relying on Urmila Halder v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Supreme Court’s decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, the Court held that the amended Schedule applies to pending claims and appeals decided after its notification, irrespective of the date of accident.

It further relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for ₹15,000 each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and ₹40,000 towards consortium, and on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, recognising spousal and parental consortium as compensable heads.

The Court treated Section 163A as containing both substantive and procedural elements: the right to claim is substantive, while the mechanism for determining compensation under the Schedule is procedural.

The accident occurred in 2014, before the amended Second Schedule; however, the Court held that the Schedule governed the determination of compensation in the pending appeal because the procedural method of quantification could be applied to proceedings that had not attained finality.

Accordingly, the basic compensation for death was reduced to ₹5,00,000.

The Court nevertheless held that Section 163A did not exclude compensation under conventional heads, since the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation requiring an interpretation advancing relief to victims and their dependants.

The widow was awarded ₹40,000 for spousal consortium and each child ₹40,000 for parental consortium. Separate amounts for loss of love and affection and pain and suffering were disallowed, while ₹15,000 each was allowed for funeral expenses and loss of estate. Medical expenses of ₹2,20,000 were retained.

The appeal was allowed and disposed of.

The amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the outstanding amount within four weeks, after which it would be disbursed to the claimants; the statutory deposit was ordered to be returned to the appellant.