Seldom, there are certain moments in history which shape the way forward for the future, and in legal profession they can be in the form of a landmark judgement or an amendment in the existing laws. One such judgement that is currently one of the most cited judgements in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases (MACT) is of Gohar Mohammad Vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Others. of 2022, delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Justice J.K. Maheshwari, on 15th December 2022. If you are a legal professional practicing in the field of MACT, civil side or criminal side, this is a must know judgement for you. We would be looking into the intricacies of the landmark judgement in this this blog as follows:
Facts of the case:
On the date of
the accident i.e 29.07.2012, the deceased, who was 24 years old, was working as
the Managing Director at a private company. The accident occurred when the
deceased was returning from the factory to his residence, and his car was hit
from behind by a bus owned by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation, on the by-pass road near Sanhwali village in Uttar Pradesh. As a
result of the accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and
unfortunately died on the way to the hospital. An FIR was lodged against the
driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle. The case involves the
liability of the owner and the insurance company, along with the compensation
to be paid to the claimants. The Supreme Court of India was reviewing the final
order from the High Court of Allahabad.
Points of contention before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and High Court (MACT)
It was held by
the High Court of Allahabad that the vehicle was not being operated as per the
terms of permit and was in violation of terms and conditions of insurance
policy, therefore the owner of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay
compensation. The High Court vide impugned order affirmed the findings of MACT
and held that the vehicle owner failed to produce the original permit and also
could not get the same proved calling the person from the Transport Department,
in absence, the Claims Tribunal rightly decided the issue of liability against
the owner.
The Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 31,90,000 to the claimants, which
was to be paid by the insurance company and recovered from the appellant. The
same was upheld by the High Court of Allahabad.
Relevance of the Judgement:
The Judgement
forms part of a revolution in cases related to motor vehicle accident claims.
It outlines various procedures and responsibilities related to insurance
companies, claims tribunals, and other stakeholders in the process. Key points
of the judgement include the duty of insurance companies to verify accident
reports, the role of claims tribunals in examining claimants and awarding
compensation, and the necessity of insurance for motor vehicles. The judgment
also provides suggestions for insurance companies and legislative/ executive
interventions to ensure timely compensation for accident victims. Additionally,
it emphasizes the need for effective implementation of the Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act and Rules.
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India was pleased to issue guidelines and directions to be
carried out in three stages regarding motor accident claims are as follows:
Directions to Police Authorities:
The responsibilities of the Investigating Officer in the event of a road accident, as outlined in the document, include the following:
- Preparation of an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of claims within three months of the accident.
- Inspection of the accident site, including taking photographs/videos and preparing a site plan.
- Collection of relevant evidence related to the accident and computation of compensation.
- Filing a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) before the Claims Tribunal within 30 days of the accident.
- Informing the injured/victims/legal representatives, drivers, owners, insurance companies, and other stakeholders about the action taken following the Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules.
These
responsibilities are crucial for the effective facilitation of claims and the
timely processing of compensation for the victims of road accidents.
The High Court
directed the Delhi Police to prepare an "Accident Investigation
Manual" for the implementation of the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure
(CTAP). SC also instructed all Police Stations in the State to comply with
provisions of Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act and submit Accident
Information Reports within 30 days of the accident thus ensuring that necessary
registers, forms, and support are extended to the Tribunals for timely
processing of claims.
It outlines the
responsibilities of the Investigating Officer in the event of a road accident,
including preparation of accident reports, evidence collection, and filing of
detailed accident reports.
The guidelines and directions issued to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT)
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India was pleased to issue guidelines and directions to be
carried out to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) where registering the
reports of accidents received under Section 158(6) of the Motor vehicle Act and
dealing with them without waiting for the filing of claim petitions on the
petitioner side was made mandatory for the tribunals.
MACT courts are
now required to maintain an Institution Register for recording Accident
Information Reports and registering all cases under Section 158(6) MV Act as
miscellaneous petitions. They have the responsibility to ensure that the
Accident Information Report (AIR), relates to a real accident and is not a
result of any collusion or fabrication by any party.
There were new
comprehensive guidelines related to the recording of evidence in the MACT tribunal
which aimed to ensure a fair and efficient process in MACT cases. Some of the
key guidelines included:
Appointment
of Local Commissioner: The document mentioned the appointment of a local
commissioner as per Rule 30 of the MV Amendment Rules 2022 to record evidence
when the insurance company disputes the liability. The expenses of the local
commissioner were to be borne by the insurance company. The Claims Tribunal was
directed to record evidence through the local commissioner in cases where the
insurance company disputes the liability. This was emphasized to prevent delays
in the disposal of cases due to the pendency of claim cases before the
tribunals.
Compliance
with Provisions: The Claims Tribunal was duty-bound to ensure compliance
with the provisions of Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act (pre-2019
Amendment) and submit the Accident Information Report within 30 days of the
registration of the FIR.
Facilitation
of Claim Settlement: The police officer and registering authority were
required to discharge their functions to facilitate and furnish information on
payment of prescribed fees to the person entitled to compensation or to the
insurer against whom the claim has been made. The document discusses the
determination of compensation for damages in motor accident claims, emphasizing
uniformity and reasonability in assessing compensation. The Claims Tribunal was
responsible for computing compensation payable to the legal representatives of
deceased victims in accordance with the principles laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court.
These guidelines
were designed to ensure that evidence was recorded effectively, disputes were
resolved efficiently, and the overall process of handling motor accident claims
was conducted in a transparent and timely manner.
Directions to Insurance Companies:
Insurance
companies were directed to designate an officer to with the responsibility
towards settling of the claims relating to accidents and making an offer for
settlement before the Claims Tribunal within 30 days of receiving information
about the accident.
These directions
aim to streamline the process of handling motor accident claims, ensuring
timely reporting, registration, and settlement of claims by the relevant
authorities, including the police, claims tribunals, and insurance companies.
It highlights
the role of insurance companies in making offers for settlement before the
Claims Tribunal within a specified timeframe.
Prescribed
Limits of Liability:
The Judgement
specifies the prescribed limits of liability for insurance companies in case of
death or grievous hurt due to a motor vehicle accident. The limits of liability
for insurance companies are specified in the policy and are subject to the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Act also provides for the
continuation of effective policies for a specified period after the
commencement of the Act.
The judgement
outlines the prescribed limits of liability for insurance companies in the
context of motor vehicle insurance. According to Section 147 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the prescribed limits of liability for insurance companies
are as follows:
Liability for
Death or Bodily Injury: The insurance policy must cover any liability
incurred by the insured in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any
person, including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative
carried in the vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a
public place.
Liability for
Property Damage: The policy of insurance shall also cover any liability
incurred in respect of damage to any property of a third party arising out of
the use of the vehicle in a public place, up to the prescribed limits.
These prescribed
limits of liability are intended to ensure that insurance policies provide
coverage for death, bodily injury, and property damage arising from the use of
motor vehicles in public places, thus safeguarding the interests of the insured
and third parties.
The prescribed limits of liability for insurance companies in case of death or grievous hurt due to a motor vehicle accident are as follows:
- A compensation of five lakh rupees in case of death
- A compensation of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt
These limits are
specified in the document as part of the legal judgment related to motor
vehicle accident claims.
There were other
miscellaneous directions and guidelines by the Hon’ble supreme court of India
to be followed in the MACT cases. Here are the key points highlighted from the
contents of the judgement:
Time-Bound
Settlement: The CTAP aimed to revolutionize the Motor Accident Compensation
Scheme, ensuring that claimants received compensation within 120 days of the
accident.
Application
for Compensation: The document detailed the process for making an
application for compensation arising out of an accident, specifying the
required form and particulars.
Dispute
Resolution: In cases of non-acceptance of offers by the claimant given by
the insurance company, the Claims Tribunal was directed to conduct an inquiry
and pass an award within 30 days.
Conclusion
These guidelines
and procedures aimed to ensure a fair, efficient, and time-bound process for
handling motor accident claims, addressing various aspects from investigation
to compensation determination. In practice also we see around us that the MACT
tribunals are working hard to implement all the directions and guidelines
presented by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case. Many of the
guidelines have bow found themselves become part of the procedure of MACT
cases, whereas others are on the verge of being fully implemented.
This judgement
has been a watershed moment for the common man in MACT cases, who earlier would
spend years in fighting such cases and would face inconvenience and monetary
loss throughout the process. This judgement has definitely eased that
inconvenience for many people.
___________________________________________________________________
Sources: Gohar Mohammad Vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Others. of 2022
___________________________________________________________________
Related Blogs:
Crucial Clues Unveiled: How the DAR Shapes Accident Trials
Summoning Evidence: Decoding BNSS Section 94
___________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer:
This Article/essay provides general information and does not constitute legal
advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for specific cases.
Tip: If
you find this Article to be of any relevance, please feel free to give your
feedback to the author via commenting below. Consider following my blog. For
any query or suggestions, you can email the author at support@legalprobe.in
___________________________________________________________________
0 Comments