The Supreme Court held that in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal must assess compensation based on the Act’s principles. It is impermissible to apply the income ceiling from the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, once the claimant has elected the remedy under the M.V. Act.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, a 23-year-old lorry loader, suffered grievous injuries in a vehicular accident on 1st December 2015, which resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal, assessing his monthly income at Rs. 9,000, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 19,35,400, which included a significant component for future loss of income. On appeal by the insurance company, the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 10,41,022. It did so by revising the appellant’s income to Rs. 8,000 per month, applying the maximum income ceiling prescribed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and then considering only 60% of that amount for calculation. The appellant challenged this reduction before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in applying the parameters of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to a claim adjudicated under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Procedural History:
The claim originated with a petition filed by the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 19,35,400. Aggrieved by this award, the insurance company filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka, which partly allowed the appeal and significantly reduced the compensation to Rs. 10,41,022. The appellant-claimant then challenged the High Court’s judgment by filing the present civil appeal before the Supreme Court of India, which set aside the High Court’s order and restored the original award passed by the Tribunal.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Upholds CCI’s Power: No Second Notice Needed Before Imposing Penalty
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court committed a legal error by applying the income ceiling from the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, to a claim petition filed and adjudicated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court emphasized that once a claimant elects the remedy under the M.V. Act, the Tribunal must assess compensation based solely on the principles of that Act. Relying on its precedent in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan & Anr., the Court held that it is impermissible to fall back upon the parameters of the Workmen’s Compensation Act after the Tribunal has fixed the income and computed the compensation. Consequently, the High Court’s reasoning for reducing the compensation was found unsustainable.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. It held that the High Court erred in applying the income restriction from the Workmen’s Compensation Act to a claim proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the Court restored the original compensation award of Rs. 19,35,400/- as determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was based on a monthly income assessment of Rs. 9,000/-.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mohammed Masood vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1179 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 12567 of 2024 Date of Judgement: September 26, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Download The Judgement Here