Section 163-A motor accident claims capped at ₹5 lakh; no extra compensation under conventional heads, rules Punjab and Haryana HC

The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Aakash @ Vipin, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 30.07.2019 while travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. HR-60E-0696.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, found that the death arose from the use of the motorcycle, assessed the deceased’s annual income at ₹40,000 and applied a multiplier of 18, with a one-third deduction towards personal expenses.

The Tribunal calculated compensation at ₹4,84,500, including amounts for funeral expenses and loss of estate, but awarded ₹5,00,000 as the applicable statutory compensation under the no-fault/structured-formula regime, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement by adding compensation under conventional heads over and above ₹5,00,000.

Whether, in a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation under conventional heads can be awarded over and above ₹5,00,000 so as to exceed the statutory limit under the structured-formula/no-fault regime?

Whether the decision in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317, required the addition of conventional heads over and above the statutory compensation of ₹5,00,000?

Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides a special no-fault remedy under which compensation is determined according to the statutory structured formula, without requiring proof of wrongful act, neglect or default.

This remedy is distinct from a claim under Section 166, where “just compensation” is determined on the basis of evidence and principles relating to future prospects, loss of dependency and conventional heads.

The Court held that, under the applicable statutory no-fault regime and the structured formula in the Second Schedule, ₹5,00,000 constitutes the maximum compensation payable in a death claim and cannot be exceeded by adding conventional heads.

The Court relied upon Asha v. National Insurance Company Ltd., FAO-6555-2025, decided on 17.04.2026; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kamlesh Kumari, FAO-705-2003, decided on 05.03.2020; Urmila Halder v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bijaya Bhuyan, (2018) 5 GLT 72; and Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh.

It distinguished Kurvan Ansari, holding that it did not decide whether conventional heads could be added beyond a subsequently applicable statutory ceiling of ₹5,00,000.

The Court held that the claimant had expressly elected the Section 163-A remedy, and was therefore bound by its structured statutory framework rather than the broader principles governing “just compensation” under Section 166.

Although the Tribunal’s formula-based calculation amounted to ₹4,84,500, it had already awarded the higher statutory amount of ₹5,00,000.

Permitting further amounts for consortium, funeral expenses or loss of estate would convert the statutory ceiling into a mere minimum and allow compensation to exceed the limit prescribed by the no-fault regime, contrary to the statutory scheme.

The principles in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, concerning future prospects and conventional heads, were held applicable to Section 166 claims for “just compensation” and not capable of overriding the limitations applicable to Section 163-A claims.

The Court further held that Kurvan Ansari did not establish an absolute rule requiring conventional heads to be added over and above ₹5,00,000.

Since the Tribunal had already awarded ₹5,00,000 with interest at 7% per annum, no further enhancement was warranted.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.