Application for compensation
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with application for compensation. An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made-- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 1989.
(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made--
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
1[Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.]
2[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:
3* * * * *.]
4[(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.]
5[(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under 6[section 159] as an application for compensation under this Act.]
7[(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.]
Section 166, The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 59 of 1988).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Constitution Bench on motor-accident multiplier, future prospects and conventional heads (loss of estate, consortium, funeral). Standardises Sarla Verma/Reshma Kumari future-prospect percentages.
On this section: s.166 just-compensation quantification follows Pranay Sethi future-prospects and conventional-head tables.
-
Rajesh Kumar @ Raju vs Yudhvir Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a motor accident claim is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 do not apply. The Explanation to Section 163A incorporating the Workmen's Compensation Act definition of disability applies only to Section 163A claims and not to Section 166 claims. A disability certificate issued years after an accident by a medical officer who was not examined and cross-examined cannot be used to overturn the Tribunal's factual findings regarding disability assessment, especially when such argument is raised for the first time before the appellate court and was not contested before the lower courts. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's and High Court's assessment of disability percentage based on available evidence must be respected unless there is clear illegality or manifest error.
On this section: Governs the procedure for filing claims for compensation in motor accident cases where fault of the vehicle owner or driver must be proven. This section requires a full-fledged trial with collection of evidence to determine liability and quantum of compensation. The Tribunal must examine evidence of fault, causation, and damages.
-
Mohan Singh vs Kashi Bai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, though specifically formulated for Section 163A claims, provides a structured formula and appropriate guidelines for multiplier selection in compensation claims under Section 166. Courts should ordinarily apply the multipliers specified in the Second Schedule based on the deceased's age at the time of accident, without deviation, unless exceptional circumstances warrant such deviation. When the loss of dependency (multiplicand) is established and not in dispute, the corresponding multiplier from the Second Schedule should be applied for compensation calculation.
On this section: Primary provision under which compensation claims are filed for death and injury in motor accidents. Court examined whether Second Schedule multipliers should guide compensation calculation under this section.
-
S. Chitra vs A. R. Iyyappan and Another
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Beneficiaries of motor accident victims have the right to claim compensation under multiple provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, including both Section 166 fault-based claims and no-fault liability provisions. When the High Court has adjudicated claims under one provision, the appellants retain the liberty to pursue alternative statutory remedies before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which must examine such claims on their independent merits and in accordance with law.
On this section: Court examined claims made under this section for compensation; recognized this as primary but not exclusive remedy for motor accident victims
-
S. Iyyapan vs United India Insurance Co. Ld.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An insurance company cannot deny or avoid its statutory liability to pay compensation to third-party accident victims merely on the ground that the driver, although holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, did not possess a specific endorsement to drive that particular light motor vehicle when used for commercial purposes. The driver's possession of a valid light motor vehicle licence is sufficient authority to operate any type of light motor vehicle regardless of whether it is used for personal or commercial transportation. The statutory obligation of the insurer under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to satisfy judgments and awards in respect of third-party liability cannot be defeated on such technical distinctions between subcategories of light motor vehicles. The compulsory insurance legislation is fundamentally a social welfare measure designed to ensure that accident victims receive compensation, and all relevant provisions must be interpreted to effectuate this paramount protective purpose.
On this section: Claims for compensation in motor accident cases
-
Indra Devi & ORS vs Bagada Ram
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
No fault compensation payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory right that exists independent of and regardless of any negligence, wrongful act, neglect or default attributable to the deceased person in respect of whose death the claim is made. Once such compensation has been paid by the insurance company, it cannot be recovered or refunded merely because subsequent investigation or judicial finding attributes fault to the deceased. The statutory character of no fault compensation as compensation 'on the principle of no fault' renders it non-refundable and distinguishes it fundamentally from fault-based compensation claims.
On this section: Compensation in motor accident cases. The appellants moved the MACT under this section to claim compensation from the truck owner and insurer for the death of Ramniwas.
-
Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa vs C. S. Gurushanthappa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The liability of a motor vehicle owner under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to pay no-fault compensation for death or permanent disablement resulting from a motor accident is absolute and independent of the owner's knowledge, consent, or involvement in the accident, and such compensation is a fixed sum determined by law that cannot be reduced, refused, or delayed based on the circumstances of the accident, the fault of the vehicle operator, the unauthorized use of the vehicle, or the procedural timing of the claim, as the statutory scheme under Chapter X (read with Sections 146-147) embodies a public policy mandate that all accident victims receive minimum compensation from the insurance fund to ensure immediate relief without exception or procedural impediment.
On this section: Fault-based compensation claim provision; Tribunal found accident occurred due to unauthorized use and rash driving; primary claim rejected but no-fault claim under Section 140 remained independently viable
-
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs Ajay Kumar Mohanty
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In motor accident disability compensation cases, when medical evidence establishes that disability is temporary rather than permanent, compensation must be calculated based on actual loss of earning capacity during the period of disability rather than assuming permanent income loss. Compensation comprises: (1) loss of actual earnings capacity during disability period (calculated as annual loss of earning multiplied by reasonable number of years); (2) reasonable amount for trauma, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life; and (3) medical expenses. Income assessment should be based on documentary evidence (income tax returns showing previous three years) supplemented by credible testimony, and internal computational inconsistencies in lower court orders must be corrected by appellate courts. High Court judgments lacking reasoned explanation and failing to address evidence on record constitute non-application of judicial mind and may be set aside even without remission when such delay would itself cause miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Framework for determining compensation claims arising from motor accident disabilities. Applied to establish the statutory basis for the claim and the principle that fair compensation must account for actual losses and suffering caused by accidents.
-
National Insurance Co. LTD vs Gurumallamma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In fatal accident cases under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, compensation must be determined strictly in accordance with the Second Schedule's structured formula based on the deceased's annual income, not by judicial application of multipliers. The multiplier method applies only to non-fatal disability cases. Where income is not documented, courts must reasonably estimate based on the nature of the deceased's occupation, and compensation is calculated as: Annual Income × Statutory Multiplier from Second Schedule, less one-third deduction for personal expenses, subject to minimum compensation of Rs. 50,000. Parliament has prescribed this statutory formula, and courts cannot override it with discretionary judicial determination, even when compensation amounts appear low.
On this section: Court distinguished between claims under Section 163A (which applies structured Second Schedule formula) and Section 166 claims (which require application of judicial mind and discretion). Court held that Section 163A requires strict adherence to Second Schedule, not judicial discretion.
-
Oriental Insurance Co. LTD vs Rajni Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the owner of a motor vehicle is himself involved in an accident and claims compensation for his death or injury, the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which provide structured formula compensation in third-party claims) do not apply. Instead, the liability of the insurance company is determined by the contractual terms of the insurance policy. The insurance company's liability is limited to indemnifying the insured against liability to third parties, and if the insured cannot be held liable to a third party, the insurer's obligation to indemnify does not arise. In cases of vehicle owner death or injury, the claim must be based on the specific personal accident insurance terms of the policy, which typically cap coverage at a fixed amount.
On this section: Related to maintainability of claims; discussed in context of owner negligence
-
Oriental Insurance Co. LTD vs Jhuma Saha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Motor vehicle insurance under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act covers only third-party liability (liability of the insured towards third parties), and does not require insurance companies to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. An owner-driver injured in an accident caused by their own negligence cannot claim compensation under the third-party motor insurance policy unless separate personal accident insurance for the owner has been taken out. The liability of the insurer is strictly limited to indemnification of the insured against third-party claims, and where the insured (owner-driver) cannot be held liable to a third party, the question of insurance liability does not arise.
On this section: Section 166 was cited in relation to the claim petition filed by the respondents. The Court discussed whether a claim petition under Section 166 is maintainable when the deceased was the owner-driver who caused the accident through their own negligence.
-
Surender Nath Loomba vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An insurance company's liability to compensate a gratuitous passenger (non-paying occupant) injured in a motor vehicle accident depends entirely on the type of insurance policy in effect: (1) Under an Act Policy (statutory minimum coverage under Motor Vehicles Act, Section 147 and 149), the insurer is not liable for injuries to gratuitous occupants as they are not third parties within the statutory definition; (2) Under a Comprehensive/Package Policy, the insurer is liable for occupant injuries if the policy terms expressly provide such coverage and applicable TAC/IRDA circulars mandate such coverage regardless of specific policy conditions; (3) When the actual policy document is not produced before the tribunal and only a Certificate of Insurance is filed, the tribunal cannot determine the policy type and therefore cannot properly determine insurance liability; (4) The party claiming Act Policy status (the insurer) must produce the original policy document to substantiate its claim, and remand to tribunal is appropriate to allow such production and evidence regarding policy type and coverage terms.
On this section: Section 166 provides the legal framework for claiming compensation before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Claimant filed petition under this section to claim compensation for accident injuries.
-
Premkumari vs Prahlad Dev
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An insurance company cannot escape liability to pay motor accident compensation merely on the ground that the driver possessed a fake or invalid driving license. The insurance company must establish that the insured (vehicle owner) committed a breach of policy conditions by negligently failing to verify a driver's license or being aware that the license was fake. A vehicle owner who verifies that a driver possesses a license that appears genuine on its face and is competent to drive has not breached any policy condition. Therefore, in such cases, the insurance company remains liable to innocent third parties, though it may be entitled to recover the amount from the insured if breach is substantially proved. The compulsory insurance scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act is fundamentally designed to protect accident victims, and this protective purpose cannot be defeated by technical grounds related to driver licensing.
On this section: Provides the framework for third-party claims arising from motor vehicle accidents
-
Vanita Hanumant Amarale vs M. S. R. T. C
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In MACT proceedings, a criminal charge sheet against a driver is a reliable document to conclude rash and negligent driving, especially when the vehicle hits from behind and the driver's testimony is self-serving.
On this section: The primary provision for claiming compensation in motor accident cases involving death or injury.
-
Savitri Devi vs Oriental Insurance Co. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a bachelor deceased is the sole earning member of a large family with multiple dependent members (including aged parents, handicapped siblings, and studying siblings), the deduction for personal and living expenses should be restricted to 1/3rd of the deceased's income rather than 50%, with 2/3rd being treated as contribution to the family, in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp.
On this section: Referenced in context of compensation claims in death cases and application of multiplier tables
-
Sakhubai Dnyaneshwar Kharade vs S. Satheesh Ramulu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In motor accident claims, where strict income proof is absent, notional income must be determined based on age and occupation. Statutory limitation periods for filing claims can be condoned by Tribunals upon showing sufficient cause such as mental trauma.
On this section: Governs the application for compensation; interpreted regarding the 6-month limitation period and negligence.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Akola. 5] The Manager , Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. , [Insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Ace No. MH-30/AB-4830], R/o. : 2nd Floor, Ambar, 22/B, Tilak Nagar, Nawab Area, Near Time Square,, Opposite Lotus Building, Nagpur (M.S.) - 440010 …. Respondents . Claim Petition u/s 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation. ……………..…………………...………………………………….. Learned Adv. Smt. Mumtaz Deshmukh, for claimants. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 proceeded ex-parte. Learned Adv. Mr. C.S. Kothari, for respondent No.3. Learned Adv. Mr. P.W. Raut, for respondent No.4. Learned Adv. Mr. G.H. Jain, …
-
… Appearance :- Mr. S.A.Sayyad, learned Advocate for petitioners. Mr. T.N.Mansuri, learned Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.R.Ghate, learned Advocate for respondent No.2. J U D G M E N T (Delivered on this 27th day of September, 2023) 1] Present petition is filed under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for grant of compensation, on account of death of Savita Balu Raut (herein after referred to as 'deceased Savita'), occurred in vehicular accident dated 05/01/2021. The facts of case, in brief, are as follows :- - 2] That, on dated 05/01/2021 around 01.30 p.m. when deceased …
Questions about Section 166
What have the courts held on Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.166 just-compensation quantification follows Pranay Sethi future-prospects and conventional-head tables. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: MV Act 166, section 166 MV Act, section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.
What should I read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 149 (Settlement by insurance company and procedure therefor), section 159 (Information to be given regarding accident), section 164 (Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc), section 165 (Claims Tribunals), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act come into force?
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, commonly called motor accident compensation, and cited as MV Act 166, came into force on 01 Jul 1989, having been enacted on 14 Oct 1988. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1948 words
- 88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted1560 words
- 51. Special provisions regarding motor vehicle subject to hire-purchase agreement, etc1199 words
- 150. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks1102 words
- 96. Power of State Government to make rules for the purposes of this Chapter995 words
- 72. Grant of stage carriage permits868 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.