LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 03 August 2026

Can compensation be awarded under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries falling outside Schedule-1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act?

R.Balaji v. Rahamathullah
2026:MHC:3203 · CMA.No.930 of 2024
Coram: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.163A Motor Vehicles Act, 1988📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. The Second Schedule to the Act states that permanent disablement shall be given the same meaning as set out in Schedule-1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, so the injuries sustained must fit into Schedule-1. If the injuries sustained are covered under none of the heads provided therein, the very claim made will become unsustainable.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.163A — Second Schedule — Schedule-1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act — Structured formula — Permanent disablement — Annual income ceiling — Per incuriam — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.163A — Social security scheme — Court cannot travel beyond the scheme — Held: Section 163A is a social security scheme paying compensation on a structured formula basis, and where its requirements are satisfied the Court need not go into the question of negligence. A beneficial legislation which has provided a scheme of its own cannot be extended to those not covered by it. (¶6, 7) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Second Schedule — Permanent disablement — Injuries must fit a listed head — Held further: To be construed as permanent disablement under the Second Schedule, injuries must fit into Schedule-1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Non-schedule injuries are covered under none of the heads provided therein and leave the very claim unsustainable. (¶9, 10) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.163A — Annual income ceiling — Finding disregarding the provision is per incuriam — Held further: The income ceiling fixed by the provision is a statutory requirement, and a claimant whose pleaded annual income exceeds it is not entitled to compensation. A finding confining every injured or deceased person’s annual income to that ceiling disregards the specific provision and is per incuriam. Appeal dismissed. (¶11, 15, 18)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 9In the Second Schedule to the Act, the term ‘permanent disablement’ has been referred to under the head “disability in non-fatal accidents”. It has been clearly stated that the term ‘permanent partial disablement/permanent total disablement’ shall be given the same meaning as set out in Schedule-1 of the Employees’ Compensation Act (Workmen’s Compensation Act). Therefore, the injuries, in order to be construed as ‘permanent disablement’, should necessarily fit into the requirements as listed in Schedule-1 of the Employees’ Compensation Act (Workmen’s Compensation Act). If the injuries sustained are not covered under any of the heads provided therein, the very claim made will become unsustainable.
Paragraph 10In the case in hand, the injuries sustained by the appellant – claimant did not fit into the niche of permanent disablement as listed in Schedule-1 of the Employees’ Compensation Act (Workmen’s Compensation Act) and therefore, the very claim made by the appellant – claimant is not sustainable.
Acts & Sections
s.163A Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s.166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Second Schedule, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Schedule-1 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of R.Balaji v. Rahamathullah — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is a judgment restricting every claimant’s annual income to the ceiling in Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 per incuriam?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections