1 2025:CGHC:55247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1000 of 2018 1 - Makhan Lal Verma S/o Khiluram Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Uraidabri, Police Station Chichola, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Munna Singh S/o Upendra Singh, Aged About 33 Years R/o Vidyut Nagar Chipra, Bilaspur, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nandkumar S/o Chabiram Verma, Aged About 48 Years R/o Bajrangpara Tata Lines Kohka, Bhilai, Ward No. 8 Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office Magma House 24 Park State Calcutta, Regional Office D. Corporate Plot No. 01, Block No. 09, Rajballu Maidan Raipur, Office No. 501/509/512 Fifth Floor, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12.11.2025 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 1. This is an appeal by the appellant against the award dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.217 of 2015. 2. Facts of the case :- On 04.10.2013, while the Appellant was travelling from Raigarh to Bhilai after loading goods in his metador vehicle bearing No. CG07 CA 7266, he was hit near Temri Dhaba, Nandghat, Mungeli (C.G.) by a truck bearing No. CG10 CO 0607 driven by Respondent No. 1, owned by Respondent No. 2, and insured by Respondent No. 3, resulting in grievous injuries to the Appellant; these injuries severely affected his knee, back and other parts of the body, causing permanent disability and rendering him unable to perform his normal work, despite having been in good health and earning Rs. 7,000 per month as a metador driver prior to the accident, and further compelling him to incur medical expenses amounting to Rs. 3,00,000; the Respondents filed their written statement denying the Appellant’s averments, whereupon the learned Claims Tribunal framed seven issues, but ultimately dismissed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the grounds that the Appellant’s annual income of Rs. 84,000 exceeded the statutory cap of Rs. 40,000 and that the claim suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle— findings which are wholly unsustainable and warrant modification and enhancement by the Hon’ble Court. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in dismissing his claim petition and denying him any compensation, particularly when it had itself earlier allowed amendment of the petition from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act despite being fully aware that the Appellant had disclosed an income of Rs. 7,000 per month; the Tribunal further erred in presuming the Appellant’s annual income to exceed Rs. 40,000 solely on the basis of an averment in the pleadings, without any supporting documentary evidence, and in ignoring the settled position that a claim otherwise falling within the ambit of Section 163-A cannot be rejected merely because the income pleaded exceeds Rs. 40,000 per annum, especially when the statutory income limit in the Second Schedule—never revised since its insertion on 14.11.1994 despite the legislative mandate of periodic revision— cannot be treated as an inflexible cap; moreover, even if a higher income is pleaded, the Tribunal is duty-bound to assess reasonable income for the purpose of awarding just and fair compensation and could have extended the benefit of Section 163-A by restricting the income to the prescribed slab, thus relieving the Appellant of the burden of proving fault; the Tribunal also erred in failing to implead, or direct the Appellant to implead, the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, whose presence was indispensable for complete and effective adjudication; and, most inexplicably, the Tribunal dismissed the claim despite 4 expressly acknowledging the grievous nature of the Appellant’s injuries and the substantial medical expenses incurred, thereby rendering the impugned order wholly unsustainable. 4. I have Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the claimant had initially filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alleging inter alia that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, i.e., truck bearing registration No. CG-10-C-0607. It is stated that the claimant, who was driving vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04- CA-7276, sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. The FIR and other documents on record clearly demonstrate that the offending vehicle involved in the accident was the aforesaid truck. During investigation, the police procured the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle, which revealed that the registered owner was Munna Singh, resident of Tifra, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). The registration of the offending vehicle was valid up to 07.02.2015, and the entire criminal investigation was carried out accordingly. After filing of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal issued notices to the respondents; however, the notice could not be served upon the owner of the offending vehicle. The claimant could not implead the driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. In these circumstances, and 5 perhaps due to incorrect legal advice, the claimant moved an application seeking amendment, whereby the original petition under Section 166 of the Act was converted into a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By way of amendment, it was also pleaded that though the accident occurred due to the offending truck, the claimant was seeking compensation with respect to the vehicle he was driving, i.e., vehicle No. CG-04-CA- 7276. The SHO, Police Station Nandghat, has also deposed that despite efforts, the owner of the offending vehicle could not be traced. 6. The claimant examined himself as PW-1, and in his examination- in-chief as well as cross-examination, he categorically stated that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. He also stated that due to lack of knowledge, he could not implead the necessary respondents including the insurer of the offending vehicle. Upon consideration of the material available on record including FIR, final report, oral evidence, and the amended pleadings, it becomes evident that due to incorrect legal advice, the claimant converted the claim from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Act. In our considered opinion, the Claims Tribunal has mechanically allowed the amendment and failed to exercise its duty under Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, which obligates the Tribunal to call for necessary reports and assist in identifying the correct parties in a motor accident claim. The Tribunal further erred in adjudicating 6 the matter solely on technical grounds without calling for the insurance particulars of the offending vehicle, despite clear evidence on record identifying the vehicle and its registration details. The approach adopted by the Tribunal has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Considering the benevolent and social welfare object of the Motor Vehicles Act and having regard to the evidence on record, the claimant had rightly filed the original claim under Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal ought to have proceeded on the basis of the original pleadings and assisted the claimant in impleading the correct parties rather than dismissing the claim on a technical ground. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Claims Tribunal with appropriate directions. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal shall exercise its powers under Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and take necessary steps to obtain complete particulars of the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-10-C-0607 and thereafter proceed with the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as originally filed. The claimant is granted liberty to amend the claim petition for impleading the necessary parties including the driver and the insurance company of the offending vehicle. His appearance before the Tribunal on 15.12.2025 shall be treated as sufficient 7 compliance and no further notice for appearance shall be required. Considering that the accident occurred long back, the learned Tribunal is directed to decide the matter expeditiously and pass a fresh reasoned award in accordance with law within a period of four months from 15.12.2025. The lower court record be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal along with a certified copy of this order forthwith. 8. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena