(1) If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one; or, if such person is not present, direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid.
(2) The Magistrate shall record and consider any cause which such complainant or informant may show, and if he is satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation, may, for reasons to be recorded make an order that compensation to such amount, not exceeding the amount of fine he is empowered to impose, as he may determine, be paid by such complainant or informant to the accused or to each or any of them.
(3) The Magistrate may, by the order directing payment of the compensation under sub-section (2), further order that, in default of payment, the person ordered to pay such compensation shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days.
(4) When any person is imprisoned under sub-section (3), the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall, so far as may be, apply.
(5) No person who has been directed to pay compensation under this section shall, by reason of such order, be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in respect of the complaint made or information given by him:
Provided that any amount paid to an accused person under this section shall be taken into account in awarding compensation to such person in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter.
(6) A complainant or informant who has been ordered under sub-section (2) by a Magistrate of the second class to pay compensation exceeding one hundred rupees, may appeal from the order, as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate.
(7) When an order for payment of compensation to an accused person is made in a case which is subject to appeal under sub-section (6), the compensation shall not be paid to him before the period allowed for the presentation of the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before the appeal has been decided; and where such order is made in a case which is not so subject to appeal the compensation shall not be paid before the expiration of one month from the date of the order.
(8) The provisions of this section apply to summons-cases as well as to warrant-cases.
Tag: CrPC 250 – Compensation For Accusation Without Reasonable Cause
All Compensation Judgments for Motor Vehicle Accidents or other mishaps
Here is a list of case laws (includes decisions from Supreme Court, High Courts, District Court and other bodies such as Consumer forums) regarding compensation in cases of accidental death or disability or other mishap which entitles compensation for the aggrieved. This is done under provisions under CrPC or Schemes setup by Courts/Government or under Article 21 of Constitution. Can be used to seek compensation in cases of loss of life, part/full disability, loss of reputation, loss of companionship etc.
- Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 10 March, 1981
- Hari Kishan & Anr Vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988
- Mary Angel & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 May, 1999
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007
- Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And others on 14 March, 2008
- In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4.06.2011 Vs UOI and Ors on 23 February 2012
- A.Shanmugam Vs Ariya K.R.K.M.N.P.Sangam on 27 April, 2012
- Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu Mujahid Vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2012
- Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited on 25 September 2015
- Mukesh & Anr Vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017
- Sulochana Vs Thiru. R.Sivasamy on Pronounced on 24 May, 2017
- Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 30 November, 2017
- Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pawan Balram Mulchandani On 25 September, 2018
- Rajeev Singhal & Anr Vs MCD (East Delhi Municipal Corporation) & Anr On 27 September, 2018
- The State of Maharastra Vs Chandrabhan Sudam Snap on 20 December, 2018
- Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini Vs Inspector of Police on 02 January, 2019
- MS Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Mandala Yadagari Goud and Ors on 9 April, 2019
- Joginder Singh and Anr Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company on 14 August, 2019
- Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020
- Gas leak at LG Polymers on 06 May 2020
- Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Nov 2020
Index of MASTER sitemap here.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Compensation is the monetary relief awarded to a victim or the legal heirs of a deceased person for death, bodily injury, permanent disability, loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, or other consequential losses arising out of a motor vehicle accident or other accidental mishaps.
Compensation claims are generally filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sections 166 and 168 govern claim petitions and award of just compensation.
A compensation claim may be filed by:
- The injured victim
- The owner of damaged property
- The legal heirs or dependents of a deceased victim
- An authorized representative acting on behalf of the claimant
The law permits legal representatives to seek compensation even if all heirs do not jointly file the claim.
Under motor accident law:
- Fault Liability Claims under Section 166 require proof of negligence, rash driving, or wrongful conduct by the offending vehicle.
- No-Fault Compensation under statutory provisions allows compensation without proving negligence in specified circumstances.
Courts have repeatedly distinguished between these two remedies while assessing compensation claims.
Courts generally consider:
- Age of the deceased or injured person
- Monthly income and future earning potential
- Number of dependents
- Nature of injuries or disability
- Medical expenses
- Pain, suffering, and loss of amenities
- Future treatment and rehabilitation costs
The objective is to award “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Yes. In fatal accident cases, the legal heirs, spouse, children, parents, or dependents of the deceased can file a compensation claim before MACT for:
- Loss of dependency
- Loss of consortium
- Funeral expenses
- Loss of estate
- Future financial loss
Courts treat compensation in fatal accident cases as a welfare measure.
Yes. Victims suffering:
- Permanent disability
- Partial disability
- Functional disability
- Loss of earning capacity
- Long-term medical complications
can claim compensation for both present and future losses.
Although an FIR, accident report, charge sheet, or police records significantly strengthen a claim, courts have held that compensation claims are decided on the basis of overall evidence and circumstances.
However, in fault-based claims under Section 166, proof of negligence remains essential. Recent MACT decisions have dismissed claims where negligence was not proved.
Depending on the facts, compensation may be payable by:
- The insurance company
- The vehicle owner
- The driver
- All of them jointly, as directed by the Tribunal
The Claims Tribunal specifies liability while passing the award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Yes. Compensation can be claimed by:
- Pedestrians
- Passengers
- Cyclists
- Occupants of other vehicles
- Third parties injured due to negligent driving
Third-party insurance exists specifically to cover such claims.
Yes. Compensation may also be awarded in cases involving:
- Electrocution
- Industrial accidents
- Building collapse
- Fire accidents
- Railway or public utility accidents
- Medical negligence
- Other actionable mishaps
Courts assess compensation based on negligence, statutory liability, or constitutional remedies.
Insurance companies may dispute liability on grounds such as:
- Policy violations
- No valid driving licence
- Vehicle not insured
- Breach of permit conditions
- Fraud or misrepresentation
However, courts often examine whether such breaches actually contributed to the accident before denying compensation.
Yes. Courts may apply the principle of contributory negligence where both parties contributed to the accident. In such cases, compensation may be proportionately reduced rather than denied altogether.
Courts generally encourage filing claims without undue delay. While statutory limitations have evolved over time, delay alone does not automatically defeat a genuine compensation claim if properly explained.
Yes. Courts and Tribunals may grant interim or provisional compensation in deserving cases to ensure immediate financial relief to victims or dependents.
Yes. An aggrieved party may challenge a compensation award before the appellate court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the award is considered inadequate, excessive, or legally unsustainable.
The objective of compensation law is to ensure that victims or their families receive fair, just, and reasonable financial relief, helping them recover from the economic and emotional consequences of an accident.
MS Indian Oil Corporation Vs MS NEPC India Ltd. and Ors on 20 July, 2006
This judgment professes the lower courts to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant.
From Para 10,
While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.
