1 / 7 2025:CGHC:38154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1091 of 2019 • Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Shop No.3, II Floor, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 2 versus 1. Smt. Kamla Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Manoj Sahu Aged About 24 Years 2. Ku. Chandni Sahu D/o Late Manoj Sahu Aged About 5 Years Minor Represented Through Her Mother Smt. Kamla Bai (Res. No.1) 3. Ku. Vedika Sahu D/o Late Manoj Sahu Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Her Mother Smt. Kamla Bai (Res. No.1), 4. Puran Lal S/o Amru Sahu Aged About 58 Years 5. Smt. Bisahin Sahu W/o Puran Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years All are R/o Village and Post Labhrakhurd, Tahsil and District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ……….Claimants 6. Ganesh Ram Sahu S/o Bhanwar Singh Sahu C/o Ramkumar Sahus Building, R/o Vikas Nagar, Gudhiyari Raipur, Presently R/o Subhash Nagar, Mahasamund, P.O. And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. --- (non-applicant No. 1/ Owner) ---Respondents ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 01/08/2025 1. Appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 award dated 03.05.2019 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. H-13/2015, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants-claimants therein under Section 163A of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,35,768/- as compensation, fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicants/ owner and Insurance company. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 06.07.2012, deceased Manoj Sahu while working as driver of the truck Tata AGE EX 275 bearing number CG04-JC-1195, owned by non-applicant No. 1, went to Mahasamund loaded with tomatoes. He after unloading tomatoes at vegetable market accepted its fair of ₹ 19,500 from Bahur Singh Sinha and at Mahasamund itself one Bhanvar Singh Sinha has handed over ₹ 22,000 for making payment of some installments of his vehicle. Manoj Sahu, while returning back along with total cash amount of ₹ 41,500 from Mahasamund, reached near Khatti turn, NH-353, near village Boriyajhar, cleaner of the truck Santu Tandi, strangulated the driver of truck Manoj Sahu, robbed the amount of ₹ 41,500 and fled away. The accident was reported to concerned police station, based on which crime No. 264/12 was registered against Santu Tandi for alleged offence under Section 394, 302 IPC. 3. Claimants who are legal representatives of deceased Manoj Sahu (driver of truck) filed an application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 18,40,000 pleading therein that the deceased on the date of accident was working as driver and earning ₹ 6,000 per month. 4. Non-applicant No. 1-owner of the truck while adopting the pleadings with regard to engagement of deceased as driver has denied the fact of 3 / 7 robbery of amount as pleaded therein on the ground that he was not aware of the value of amount which has been robbed. It is also pleaded that on the date of accident truck owned by him was insured with non- applicant No. 2 and liability if any would be upon non-applicant No. 2- insurance company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 5. Non-applicant No. 2- Insurance company submitted reply denying the pleadings made in the application. Primarily objection is also raised with regard to maintainability of the claim application under Section 163A on the ground of income of the deceased as pleaded in the claim application is ₹ 6,000 per month. Non-applicant No. 2 has raised other grounds also as available to it. 6. Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties had allowed the application in part, assessed income of deceased as ₹ 4,940 per month, computed the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 5,35,768. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has not considered primary objection raised by the appellant-insurance company in the reply to claim application that the submission of application under Section 163A is not maintainable in view of the income as pleaded for seeking compensation. He submits that the claim application is filed in the year 2013 and the application could be maintainable only if the maximum income of deceased is ₹ 40,000 per annum or less as envisages in the IInd Schedule appended under Section 163A of the Act of 1988. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in deciding the application filed under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 making observation and taken note of the provisions under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 which is erroneous. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has even not 4 / 7 considered that the charges under Section 302 of IPC is levelled against the accused person and therefore death of Manoj Sahu (driver) is a murder and not the motor accidental death. 8. Learned counsel for claimants/ Respondents No. 1 to 5 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal has considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rita Devi and others vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 113 and considered that as the murder of deceased was not intentional but it is consequential at the time of committing robbery of cash amount from the deceased and therefore Claims Tribunal has held that death of deceased is arising out of use of motor vehicle which cannot be faulted with. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant that application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 was not maintainable in view of the income as pleaded in the application of ₹ 6,000 per month is concerned, perusal of claim application would show that it was filed under the provisions of Section 163A which reads as under: “163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second 5 / 7 Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.” 11. Perusal of aforementioned provision would show that the compensation is to be awarded as per IInd Schedule appended to the Act of 1988. Under this schedule as framed under Section 163A of the Act for fatal accident the maximum income as mentioned therein in Clause-I is ₹ 40,000 per annum. 12. The question as to whether the proceeding under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 can be maintained at the instance of the claimants where the income of the deceased or injured exceeded ₹40,000/- per annum is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni & ors vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385 wherein it was held that in terms of the provision under section 163A, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is ₹ 40,000/- or less is covered thereunder, whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society. Relevant paras of the said decision is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- "41. The scheme envisaged under Section 163A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the 6 / 7 aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is ₹ 40,000/- or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society. 67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (supra) has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163A, the annual income of ₹ 40,000/- per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto ₹ 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.” 13. In case at hand, from perusal of the contents of claim application it is clear that it is an application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 wherein it is pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 25 years of age, doing the work of driver and earning ₹ 6,000/- per month, which makes the annual income of injured-claimant as ₹ 72,000/- per annum. Even in the evidence recorded before the Claims Tribunal of Smt. Kamla Bai Sahu, widow of deceased, has deposed that the deceased was earning ₹ 6,000 per month, meaning thereby annual income of appellant was more than ₹ 40,000. Since the claimants themselves have claimed that income of deceased was more than ₹40,000/- per annum, therefore, they cannot claim compensation under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, this Court holds that application filed under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 by applicants-claimants in Claim Case No. H-13/2015 is not maintainable. 7 / 7 14. Accordingly, appeal filed by Insurance Company is allowed. Impugned award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the claim case afresh in accordance with law, granting opportunity of hearing to both the sides. It goes without saying that they will be at liberty to amend their pleadings and also to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective case in addition to what has already been adduced. Parties to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 22.09.2025. Original record of claim case be dispatched forthwith to the Claims Tribunal. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn