Dismissed

Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Prakash v. Nandkishor Bairwa S/O Shri Harchand Bairwa

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2025CMA/5243/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil appeal against an order that remanded the motor accident case to the Tribunal for proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the deceased's statutory income exceeded the Section 163 limit of Rs. 40,000.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned order remanding the case to the Tribunal for proceedings under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is upheld.

Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Prakash Vs Nandkishor Bairwa S/O… — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:38737]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5243/2018

¶4

Smt. Lali Devi W/o Late Shri Prakash, Aged About 31 Years.

¶5

Mahendra S/o Late Shri Prakash, Aged About 13 Years.

¶6

Pooja D/o Late Shri Prakash, Aged About 9 Years.

¶7

Komal D/o Late Shri Prakash, Aged About 6 Years.

¶8

Nisha D/o Late Shri Prakash, Aged About 5 Years.

¶9

Smt. Pani Devi W/o Late Shri Norat, Aged About 61 Years. Appellant no. 2 to 5 are minor through their natural guardian mother appellant no. 1 Smt. Lali Devi.

¶10

All R/o Village Siraunj, P.S. Arai, District Ajmer (Raj).

¶11

----Claimants-Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Nandkishor Bairwa S/o Shri Harchand Bairwa, R/o Gagunda, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer. (Driver Of The Motorcycle No. RJ- 42-SA-6900)

¶14

Rampal Bairwa S/o Shri Chhitar Bairwa, R/o Village Gagunda, Tehsil Arai District Ajmer. (Owner Of The Motorcycle No. RJ-42-SA-6900)

¶15

National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office At Kachhari Road, Ajmer Having Its Regional Office At LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur. (Insurer Of The Motorcycle No. RJ-42-SA-6900)

¶16

----Non-Claimants-Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s)	: Ms. Shreya Khandal for
	Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ram Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JP:38737]

[CMA-5243/2018]

(2 of 7)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

¶22

Order

¶23

18/09/2025

¶24

vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] fd'kux<+] ftyk vtesj }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k 67@2015 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 21-07-2018 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh x;h gS] ftlds ek/;e ls fo}ku vf/kdj.k us Dyse varxZr /kkjk 163, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e esa vihykFkhZx.k dks dqy 4]17]500@& :i;s izfrdj jkf'k rFkk mDr jkf'k ij ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh fnukad 24-03-2015 ls olwyh rd 6 izfr'kr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls C;kt fnyok;k gSA

¶25

chek daiuh rFkk okgu Lokeh@pkyd dh vksj ls dksbZ vihy izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA

¶26

vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k us erd dh lM+d nq?kZVuk esa eR;q gksus ij izfrdj jkf'k dh x.kuk djrs le; mldh 100@& :i;s nSfud vk; ds vk/kkj ij ekfld vk; fu/kkZfjr dh gS] tcfd nq?kZVuk dh fnukad 09-07-2014 dks izpfyr U;wure etnwjh nj 189@& :i;s izfrfnu Fkh rFkk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)akrksa ds vuqlkj ekfld vk; dh x.kuk 30 fnol dh etnwjh nj ds vk/kkj ij dh tkuh pkfg, FkhA blh izdkj fo}ku vf/kdj.k us erd dh Hkfo"; esa vk; of) dks /;ku esa ugha j[kdj bl en esa dksbZ izfrdj jkf'k ugha fnyok;h gS vkSj uk gh izse] Lusg o okRlY; ds en esa i;kZIr jkf'k fnyok;h gS] tcfd fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i vihykFkhZx.k dks 40 izfr'kr dh nj ls Hkfo"; esa vk; o`f) dk ykHk rFkk izR;sd vihykFkhZ dks 48]400@& :i;s dalksfVZ;e dh gkfu ds en esa

¶27

(3 of 7) [CMA-5243/2018]

¶28

[2025:RJ-JP:38737]

¶29

fnyok;s tkus pkfg, FksA blh izdkj vU; enksa esa Hkh fo}ku vf/kdj.k us de izfrdj jkf'k fnyok;h gSA vr% izfrdj jkf'k esa fof/k vuqlkj o`f) fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶30

izR;FkhZ&chek daiuh ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k Dyse ;kfpdk varxZr /kjk 163, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e esa is'k dh x;h gS] ftlds varxZr 40]000@& :i;s okf"kZd vk; rd ds ekeyksa dk gh vfHkfu/kkZj.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gksus dh fnukad dks e`rd dh U;wure etnwjh 189@& :i;s izfrfnu Hkh ekuh tkos] rks okf"kZd vk; 68]040@& :i;s gksrh gS] tks fd 40]000@& :i;s ls vf/kd gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vihykFkhZx.k dh Dyse ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 163, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e iks"k.kh; ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr /kkjk 163, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds varxZr Hkfo"; esa vk; dh gkfu dh jkf'k fnyok;s tkus dk dksbZ izko/kku ugha gSA vr% vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy [kkfjt dh tkosA

¶31

eSaus mHk; i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶32

orZeku izdj.k esa fnukad 09-07-2014 dks 'kke djhc 5-00&6-00 cts izdk'k uanfd'kksj ds lkFk eksVjlkbfdy uacj RJ 42 SA 6900 ij ihNs cSBdj vius xkao fljksat vk jgk FkkA tc os nkfn;k pkSjkgs ds ikl igqaps rks lkeus ls ,d VªsDVj vk x;k] ftlls nksuksa okguksa esa VDdj gks x;h vkSj mDr nq?kZVuk esa izd'k ds flj ij pksV vkus ls mldh e`R;q gks x;hA rRi'pkr vihykFkhZx.k }kjk fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k /kkjk 163, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds varxZr Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;hA

[CMA-5243/2018]

[2025:RJ-JP:38737]

(4 of 7)

eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 163, dh f}rh; vuqlwph ds vuqlkj 40]000@& :i;s rd dh okf"kZd vk; ls lacaf/kr izdj.k gh /kkjk 163, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds rgr iks"k.kh; gSaA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fofu'p; Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%&

¶37

"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 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act."

¶38

blh izdkj ekuuh; dukZVd mPp U;k;ky; us vius fofu'p; Uday Achuta Kodiya Yane Mahale Vs United Insurance Co. Ltd. AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 3006 ds iSjk la[;k 3 o 4 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%&

¶39

"3. It is not in dispute that deceased was a sweeper by profession and was an employee of the corporation of City of Bangalore and his gross salary was Rs. 4342/- and not salary was Rs. 4179/-. Ex.P-6 is the salary certificate. By looking into Ex.P-6, considering the pleadings of the claimants, we are of the opinion that claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act was not maintainable. Claim petition under Section 163-A is applicable to the person whose income is less than Rs. 40,000/per annum. Tribunal has no power to restrict the income of the claimant or deceased as the case may be to Rs. 40,000/- to bring the petition within the purview of Section 163-A of the MV Act. Section 163-A of the MV Act is enacted to give benefit to particular class of people whose income is less than Rs. 40,000/-

[2025:RJ-JP:38737]

[CMA-5243/2018]

(5 of 7)

per annum. Therefore, when a person is having income of more than Rs. 40,000/- in order to get benefit under Section 163-A of the MV Act, cannot maintain a petition by restricting his income to Rs. 40,000/- per annum.

¶44

Therefore, we are of the opinion that judgment and award of the tribunal has to be set aside and we have to direct the tribunal to consider the case of the claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act.

¶45

4. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Judgment and award of the tribunal are hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to the tribunal for fresh consideration and dispose of the claim petition treating it under Section 166 of the MV Act. Amount in deposit is ordered to be sent to the tribunal. If any amount is drawn by the claimants, same shall be subject to fresh outcome by the tribunal and out of the amount deposited by the BMTC if any amount is lying with the tribunal, same shall be invested in any nationalized bank in fixed deposit for a period of one year and the same shall be released subject to the outcome of the decision of the tribunal."

¶46

blh izdkj dk er ekuuh; flfDde mPp U;k;ky; us vius fofu'p; Chandra Maya Sunwar Vs Geeta Mukhia and Ors. MAC App. No. 10 of 2024 Judgment Dated 17.04.2025 esa Hkh mDr izdkj dk er O;Dr fd;k gSA ,sls esa ftu izdj.kksa esa e`rd dh okf"kZd vk; 40]000@& :i;s ls vf/kd gks] ogka /kkjk 163, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA

¶47

tgka rd orZeku izdj.k esa erd dh okf"kZd vk; dk iz'u gS] rks fo}ku vf/kdj.k us erd dh vk; gkfu dh x.kuk djrs le; mldh vk; 100@& :i;s nSfud vk; fdl vk/kkj ij ekuh gS] bldk dksbZ ;qfDr;qDr o U;k;laxr vk/kkj ugha fn;k gSA nq?kZVuk fnukad 09-07-2014 dks jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk ds vuqlkj vdq'ky Jfed dh U;wure etnwjh nj

[CMA-5243/2018]

[2025:RJ-JP:38737]

(6 of 7)

189@& :i;s izfrfnu fu;r FkhA ,sls esa ;fn 189@& :i;s izfrfnu ds vk/kkj ij e`rd dh okf"kZd vk; dh x.kuk dh tkos] rks ;g 68]040@& :i;s laxf.kr gksrh gS] tks 40]000@& :i;s ls vf/kd gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa Dyse ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; ugha jgrh gSA

¶52

bl izdkj fo}ku vf/kdj.k dks nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksZa] izLrqr ekSf[kd rFkk nLrkosth lk{; ds lex z voyksdu ds i'pkr xq.kkoxq.k ij foospu djrs gq, erd dh okf"kZd vk; fu/kkZfjr dh tkuh pkfg, Fkh] ,slk ugha djds fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk fof/kd Hkwy o =qfV dh x;h gSA esjs fouez er esa erd dh okf"kZd vk; dk fu/kkZj.k djus gsrq o mDr vk; ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk fopkj.k /kkjk 163, vFkok 166 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj i=koyh fo}ku vf/kdj.k dks iqu% izsf"kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

¶53

vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj fo}ku eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] fd'kux<+] ftyk vtesj }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k 67@2015 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 21-07-2018 vikLr fd;k tkdj izdj.k fo}ku vf/kdj.k dks bl vkns'k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os erd dh okf"kZd vk; ds laca/k esa vihy esa vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls mBk;s x;s rdksZa] izLrqr fofu'p;ksa rFkk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; o vU; mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk izfrikfnr uohure fl)karksa dks nf"Vxr j[krs gq, u;s fljs ls foosfpr dj fof/k vuqlkj fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA

¶54

i{kdkjku dks fnukad 10-11-2025 dks fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k mifLFkr gksus ds fy, funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA vkyksP; iapkV ds vuqlkj ;fn vihykFkhZx.k }kjk dksbZ jkf'k izkIr dh x;h gS] rks mDr jkf'k

¶55

[2025:RJ-JP:38737]

¶56

(7 of 7) [CMA-5243/2018]

¶57

fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk u;s fljs ls fu.kZ; ikfjr djus rd vihykFkhZx.k ls olwy ugha dh tkosA 'ks"k jkf'k izFker% ,d o"kZ ds fy, jk"Vªh;dr cSad esa lkof/k tek [kkrs esa tek dh tk,xh rFkk rRi'pkr le;≤ ij uohuhdr gksrh jgsxhA

¶58

orZeku vihy rFkk layXu izkFkZuk i=] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA

¶59

fo}ku vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k ;fn bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gks j[kk gS] rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk ykSVk;k tkosA

¶60

MANISH SAINI /63

¶61

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J

Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Prakash v. Nandkishor Bairwa S/O Shri Harchand Bairwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Prakash v. Nandkishor Bairwa S/O Shri Harchand Bairwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swara Vs Girish Kumar and Ors.

Hargovind Nirbhik S/O Shri Kesari Lal Vs Nikhil Khandelwal S/O Shri Mahesh Chandra

Smt. Santok Devi Wife of Late Shri Rajulal Vs Omprakash Choudhary S/O Shri Nanuram Choudhary

U O I Vs M/S Sethi Construction Co.

Smt. Mamta W/O Late Shri Satveer Vs Daljeet Singh S/O Buasingh

Meethalal S/O Shri Ramgopal Vs Rajendra Prasad S/O Shri Prabhudayal