In order to initiates faster claim process, during the motor vehicle accident under the motor vehicle act, the supreme court has furnished certain guidelines.
These guidelines will prove to be of greater help to the person to get their claims on a speedy basis without delay. This will also ensure for the registration of First Accident Report by the police immediately after a motor vehicle accident took place.
The Court directed the Police department of all states to develop a specialized unit and post trained police officers in every police station within three months which will secure proper abidance and effective execution of all the rules related to the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2019.
“For the effective implementation of the MV Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the specified trained police personnel are required to be deputed to deal with the motor accident claim cases”, a Bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari said.
Chief justice D.Y. Chandrachud, while Speaking at the inauguration of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy, also acknowledged and addressed the pendency of the cases in the court.
Here are several guidelines for the Insurance Company and the police, issued by the Supreme Court:
Immediate steps and actions should by the concerned Station House Officer, according to the Section 159 of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.
- First Investigation Report (FIR) would be written and noted by the prescribed Police Station Master.
- After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer, as per Motor Vehicles Amendment Rules, 2022 should submit the First Accident Report within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal.
- Within the prescribed time limit, the Interim Accident Report (IAR) and Detailed Accident Report (DAR) also should be filed before the Claims Tribunal
- The registering officer should verify the registration of the vehicle, driving license, fitness of the vehicle, permit, and other ancillary issues and submit the report in coordination with the police officer before the Claims Tribunal
- The flow chart and all other documents, as specified in the Rules, shall either be in vernacular language or in English language, as the case may be and shall be supplied as per Rules. The Investigating Officer shall inform the victim(s)/legal representative(s), driver(s), owner(s), insurance companies and other stakeholders with respect to the action taken following the Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules and shall take steps to produce the witnesses on the date, so fixed by the Tribunal.
- Distribution of police stations attaching them with the Claim Tribunals is required. Therefore, distribution memo attaching the police stations to the Claim Tribunals shall be issued by the Registrar General of the High Courts from time to time, if not already issued to ensure the compliance of the Rules.
- the Chief Secretary/Director General of Police in each and every State/Union Territory shall develop a specialized unit in every police station or at town level and post the trained police personnel to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act and the Rules, within a period of three months from the date of this order.
- On receiving FIR from the police station, the Claims Tribunal shall register such FIR as Miscellaneous Application. On filing the IAR and DAR by the Investigating Officer in connection with the said FIR, it shall be attached with the same Miscellaneous Application. The Claims Tribunal shall pass ap propriate orders in the said application to carry out the purpose of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules, as discussed above.
- The Claim Tribunals are directed to satisfy themselves with the offer of the Designated Officer of the insurance company with an intent to award just and reasonable compensation. After recording such satisfaction, the settlement be recorded under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Amendment Act, subject to consent by the claimant(s). If the claimant(s) is not ready to accept the same, the date be fixed for hearing and affording an opportunity to produce the documents and other evidence seeking enhancement, the petition be decided. In the said event, the said enquiry shall be limited only to the extent of the enhancement of compensation, shifting onus on the claimant(s).
- The General Insurance Council and all insurance companies are directed to issue appropriate directions to follow the mandate of Section 149 of the M.V Amendment Act and the amended Rules. The appointment of the Nodal Officer prescribed in Rule 24 and the Designated Officer prescribed in Rule 23 shall be immediately notified and modified orders be also notified time to time to all the police stations/stakeholders.
- If the claimant(s) files an application under Section 164 or 166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, on receiving the information, the Miscellaneous Application registered under Section 149 shall be sent to the Claims Tribunal where the application under Section 164 or 166 is pending immediately by the Claims tribunal.
- In case of the separate claim petition filed by the claimant(s) or legal representative(s) of the deceased, the first claim petition filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s) shall be maintained by the said Claims Tribunal and the subsequent claim petitions(s) shall stand transferred to the Claims Tribunal where the first claim petition was filed and pending.
The Registrar Generals of the High Courts shall take appropriate steps and pass appropriate order in this regard in furtherance to the directions of the directions of this Court.
- If the claimant(s) takes recourse under Section 164 or 166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, as the case may be, he/they are directed to join Nodal Officer/ Designated Officer of the insurance company as respondents in the claim petition as proper party of the place of accident where the FIR has been registered by the police station. Those officers may facilitate the Claims Tribunal specifying the recourse as taken under Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act.
- Registrar General of the High Courts, States Legal Services Authority and State Judicial Academies are requested to sensitize all stakeholders as early as possible with respect to the provisions of Chapters XI and XII of the M.V. Amendment Act and the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022 and to ensure the mandate of law.
- For compliance of mandate of Rule 30 of the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022, it is directed that on disputing the liability by the insurance company, the Claims Tribunal shall record the evidence through Local Commissioner and the fee and expenses of such Local Commissioner shall be borne by the insurance company.
- The State Authorities shall take appropriate steps to develop a joint web portal/platform to coordinate and facilitate the stakeholders for the purpose to carry out the provisions of M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules in coordination with any technical agency and be notified to public at large.
Gohar mohammed v uttar Pradesh state road transport corporation
In this case, the Bench dismissed the appeal and reconfirmed the MACT’s and High Court’s orders. The Allahabad High Court had affirmed the findings of MACT and held that the vehicle owner failed to produce the original permit and also could not get the person from the Transport Department.
At the very outset, this extremely commendable, cogent, courageous and creditworthy judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice JK Maheshwari for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice S Abdul Nazeer and himself sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The instant appeal has been filed assailing the final order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No. 3303 of 2018, vide which the appeal preferred by the appellant against the award dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’) in MACP No. 1107 of 2012 has been dismissed.
MACT allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 31,90,000/ (Thirty-one lacs and ninety thousand only) in favour of respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (legal representatives of deceased and hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) to be paid by respondent No. 5. (Insurance Company), with further direction to recover the same from appellant (hereinafter referred as owner) who was saddled with liability.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then very rightly envisages in para 3 that, “Facts briefly put are that, on the date of accident, i.e., 29.07.2012, the deceased was 24 years old and working as Managing Director at DRV Drinks Pvt. Ltd. While he was returning from factory to residence, his car was hit from behind by a bus owned by appellant on the bypass road near Sanhwali village (U.P.).
The deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the way to hospital. FIR was lodged against the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle and on 19.01.2012, claim petition was filed by claimants before MACT seeking compensation of Rs. 4,19,00,000/ (Four crores and nineteen lacs only) under various heads.”
As it turned out, the Bench then observes in para 8 that, “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it clearly reveals that on the date of accident, the appellant did not have a valid and effective permit to ply the offending vehicle on the route where accident took place.
Having extensively gone through the fact finding exercise, it is categorically recorded by MACT that the appellant was neither able to produce/prove the original permit nor was able to prove the information received under RTI Act. Even if RTI information is considered by which it is not clear as to when the disputed permit was issued and by whom.
The alleged permit was issued on 28.07.2012, i.e., on Saturday and no explanation is on record as to why deposit of fee was asked on the next day i.e. Sunday.
Moreover, assuming that permit was valid as per letter of Transport Authority, but it does not turn to be of any help to the appellant since the vehicle was being plied on a route different than specified in permit.
The appellant has failed to give any explanation to refute the observations made by MACT to ply the vehicle on Roorkee bypass to Haridwar via Meerut which did not fall within the route of permit issued by Transport Authority. The said findings of fact have been affirmed by the High Court by the impugned order.”
Quite significantly and as a corollary, the Bench then mandates in para 9 that, “After going through the record, the concurrent findings of fact do not warrant any interference since they do not outrageously defy the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality and neither incur the blame of being perverse. In view of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the arguments raised by appellant are bereft of any merit, hence this appeal is hereby dismissed.”
Conclusion:
These guidelines issued by the court will helps in better and effective functioning of the motor vehicle act. This will also reduce the chances of delay receive of claims and even enhances the speedy justice and benefits to the people and the society.
BY: AYUSHI BHUSHAN, 1ST YEAR, BA.LLB(INTEGRATED), BANASTHALI UNIVERSITY, RAJASTHAN
