Dear Friends,
As you are aware that many people every year are losing their lives in road accidents all over India. In some cases accident occurred due to their fault or negligence and on other hand in some cases on the fault and negligence of third parties or the owner of motor vehicles. An person injured in an motor accident or legal representatives of a person deceased in motor accident may apply for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is an act to prevent Motor Accidents and in case of happening of an accident to provide adequate compensation to the injured and to punish the wrongdoers.
The Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 is a comprehensive Act that has replaced the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. It was implemented on 1st July 1989. The first Act that came in force regulating the road transport vehicles was the Motor Vehicles Act, 1914. The Act of 1914 was later on replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Later on, with the changing time the need to introduce new changes became urgent so, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was enacted.
The Motor Vehicles Act,1988 regulates all cases related to Motor Accidents all over India. The Government has established Motor Appellate Claim Tribunals to handle motor accident claims cases.The Act,1988 covers all aspects road transport vehicles, such as registration, licensing, regulation, claims, compensation in case of accident etc.
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is a tribunal established for the cases falling under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The main purpose of the Claims Tribunal is to ensure speedy trial of cases and that justice is being delivered.
The claimant should apply to claim within a reasonable period. According to Section 173, the appeals against the Claims Tribunals will lie before the High Courts. The appeals will have to be filed within 90 days from the date of the decision. If in case the claimant is late to file the appeal then he has to give a reasonable reason for such delay. If satisfied, the Court will then admit the appeal. In case the amount in dispute in appeal is less than Rs10,000/- then it shall not be entertained.
The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal deals with the cases that involve loss of life or property, or in case of injury. The Claims can be filed in the appropriate Claims Tribunal. High Courts of different states supervise these Tribunals.
Given below are the basic rules of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- According to Section 3 of the Act, no person can drive a vehicle without any authorized driving license, and without any driving license authorizing a person to drive a transport he cannot drive such a vehicle.
- Section 4 states that unless a person attains the age of majority (18 years) he cannot drive a vehicle.
- From Section 35 to Section 65 procedure for the registration of the vehicle has been laid down and it has been made mandatory to get one's vehicle registered.
- It is necessary for the vehicle owner to get third party insurance as stated from Sections 145 to 164.
- SECTION 166 of the Act tells about who can apply for compensation in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Who can claim compensation in MACT cases?
As per Section 166 of the Act, a person claims compensation if :
i) he has sustained an injury
ii) he is the owner of the property
iii) he is the legal representative of the person who died in the motor accident
iv) he is the agent authorized by the injured person, or by the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.
When can compensation be claimed?
There is no prescribed limit within which the claim application has to be filed. But claiming the compensation after a long unnatural period might result in raising doubts in the minds of the Tribunal. Therefore, even though there is no prescribed limit to apply for compensation it should be claimed within a reasonable time.
According to Section 165(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Claims Tribunal can entitle compensation to the claimant in the following circumstances –
i) When the accident involves death or bodily injury to a person
ii) When the accident results in the loss of any property of a third party
iii) When such accidents arise out of the use of motor vehicles
Where can compensation be claimed?
The application for the claim can be filed in the following tribunals :
i) The Claims Tribunal where the claimant resides
ii) The Claims Tribunal where the owner of the vehicle resides
iii) The Claims Tribunal where the accident took place.
It is pertinent that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept of "just compensation"which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability because such determination can never be arithmetically exact and can never be perfect. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the learned Tribunal shall conduct an inquiry into the claim petition.
Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the learned Tribunal shall follow such summary procedure as it deem fit to conduct such an inquiry. The inquiry stipulated in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is different from the civil trial. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a duty on the learned Tribunal to conduct an inquiry in a meaningful manner. The object of the legislature behind making this provision is that the victims of road accident are not left at their own mercy.
It means that "Just Compensation"is a compensation decided by the tribunal or the courts, which will be sufficient to the injured person or the legal representatives to the deceased person in a road accident. It will be based on fairness, reasonableness and equitability. The compensation should not be a medium of exploitation or earning on one hand and on other it should not be less than as equality demand. You cannot measure loss of life or loss of limbs /mental agony of a person in an accident on monitory basis. The compensation should be adequate and based on principles of fairness, equality and reasonability.
The concept of "Just Compenation", is fundamentally concretized on certain well-established principles and accepted legal parameters as well as principal of equity and good conscience.
In Yadav Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & others 2010(4)RCR(Civil)155- held that "it goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with responsibility of fixing "Just Compensation". It is obliviously true that determination of just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of "Just Compensation"obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a resonable approach on thee part of tribunals and the courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and the court must be on a large peripheral field."
The determination of the quantum of "Just Compensation"must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life's and limb in free country in genera our scales.[Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55(SC)]
Mr. Helen C. Rebello & Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & others 1998(4)RCR(Civil) 177- while dealing with "Just Compensation", it has been ruled that the word "Just", as its nomenclature, donates equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral filed. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary, it is restricted by concise which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, inequitable and not just. The field of wider discretion of the tribunal has to be within the said limitations. It is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which in turn appears to "Just and Resonable", for compensation for loss limbs of life can hardly weighed in golden scales.
The Insurance Act provides a mechanism for fair compensation and the legal heirs of the claimants should not expect a windfall. The age and income of the deceased determine the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been defined in Sarla Verma and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (2013) 9 SCC 65. 'Consistency' and the principle of "Standardisation"is the watchword and a specific and certain multiple ought to be applied on the basis of age.
In Raj Rai Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2009 JT325- it was held that the Court's duty being to ward "Just Compensation", it will try to arrive at the said finding irrespective of the fact as to whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not.
PLEASE NOTE THAT
As state above Section 168 of the MVA,1988, the Motor tribunals is expected to fix such compensation, which may appear to be "Just Compensation"would mean "resonable"compensation for the injury, caused in an accident, resulted due to the negligence of the motorist. So "Just"would mean appropriate, equitable or proper. It signifies that the compensation amount should bee so assessed as to make provision for the legal representatives of the deceased to receive or earn such peculiarly benefits as they could have obtained from the deceased if he had alive his normal life[ Surinder Kaur Vs. Bhagat Singh (1978) 80 Punjab LR732].
The grant of compensation amount, which would enable the legal representatives of the deceased to earn more pecuniary benefit than thee one that have been available to them from the deceased during his lifetime, would not be proper and grant of compensation amount which would not enable such legal representative to earn as much pecuniary benefits was available to them from the deceased during lifetime, would not be equitable.
Therefore the compensation to be assessed which can be termed as "Just"as contemplated by Section 168 should be such as would, if the same is prudently invested in some Schedule Bank, earn interest, which would be equal to the pecuniary benefit, which had been available to the legal representatives from the deceased if he had not died due to the accident which resulted from negligence of user of the motor vehicle.
In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55(SC)- the Court observed that "the jurisprudence of compensation for motor vehicles accident must develop in the direction of no-fault liability and determination of the quantum must be liberal and not niggardly, since law values life and limbs in a free country on a generous scales."
The Apex Court in, Ramla and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others A.I.R. 2017 held that 'just compensation' is that compensation which is determined on the basis of the evidence produced. It cannot be considered as time-barred and doesn't give a reason to file another case for an already increased amount. The Court also held that the Courts have the power to award compensation more than what is claimed by the claimants.
In the above-mentioned case, the claimants sought an increase in compensation awarded to them by the Kerala High Court which was Rs 25,000/-. The Supreme Court stated that under the head of 'loss of dependency' the amount wasn't sufficient. Therefore, it enhanced the amount to Rs 28,000/-.
LET'S CONSIDER SOME IMPORTANT CASES FOR COMPENSATION
1. Can a bus passenger claim full compensation in case of a bus accident?
The Court in Venkataswami Motor Service v. C.K Chinnaswamy stated :
"The fundamental duty of both the driver as well as the conductor is to verify specifically, whether any passenger is getting into the bus or is getting down from the bus, before actually the bus is moved from the bus stop where it is stopped, irrespective of the fact whether that place of stopping is a bus stop or not."
Thus, it can be said that in case of an accident of a bus passenger, it will be the duty of the owner or the insurance company to compensate the victim.
2. When both the victim and the driver are at fault?
Not every time it is compulsory that only one party is at fault. In some cases, it is more than two parties who are at fault. In such circumstances two options are there :
i) Contributory Negligence –
Here, the claimant along with the driver had contributed to the accident. It not only the negligence on the part of the driver but the claimant too. So, if the claimant has equally contributed to the happening of the accident then his compensation would be reduced to half. Otherwise, his compensation will be reduced in proportion to his negligence.
ii) Composite Negligence –
In composite negligence, the accident happens because of the fault of two or more parties excluding the victim. Here, there is no fault on the part of the victim. Thus, when more than two parties are involved in an accident and claim compensation under the third-party, the compensation will be decided in respect of the composite negligence on the part of drivers of those vehicles.
3. Accident caused by an underage driver
If an accident is caused because of the underage driver then the insurance company is not liable to compensate the victim. The parents or legal guardian of such a child will be held liable.
4. Compensation available to a child (victim) in case of an accident
Normally when a person dies in an accident then the compensation is assessed based on his earning capacity and his age. But what happens when a child dies in an accident. It is not as if he earns in his family so then how will the compensation be decided in such a case.
The Supreme Court in one of its cases has stated that if a child dies in an accident then while deciding the compensation child's educational qualification, his performance in school will be considered. If the child was good in his studies then it would mean a bright future which directly means more loss. So, he would get more compensation. But still, it can be said that there is no standard way of calculating claim in case of death of a child.
5. Compensation available in a motor vehicle accident if the victim is a wife
Once again it is a situation where the victim is not the earner of the family. The compensation cannot be reduced on the pretext that the victim is not the earner of the family so, some other member can take care of the family. Therefore, in 1994, the legislature had fixed the income of a non-earning person at Rs 15,000/- per month and in case of a spouse, it would be ⅓ rd income of the spouse who is earning for computing of accident claims.
6. Can a Pillion Rider and a Co-passenger Claim Compensation in case of Two-wheeler and Car Accident respectively?
The Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sudhakaran K.V., where this issue was raised, held that :
i) The insurance company is not liable to compensate a pillion rider or a co-passenger. It is only possible if the policy included this aspect from the beginning the required amount was being paid for the same.
ii) In case of an accident resulting because of the negligent driving of the owner of the two-wheeler or a car then the co-passenger or the pillion rider of such car or two-wheeler will not be considered as the third-party.
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES IN INDIA
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport v. Kailash Nath Kothari & Ors. A.I.R 1997 S.C. 3444.
In this case, a bus met with an accident and the driver of the bus was not the actual owner of the bus. Also, the actual owner had rented the bus to a Corporation who had appointed the driver of the bus. So, the actual owner was not in the possession of the bus. The Court held the Corporation liable for the accident and was asked to pay compensation to the victims.
2. Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar
The appellant, in this case, was a cart puller. One day he met with an accident which resulted in his leg being amputated. His monthly income was Rs 3,300/-. He no longer was in a position to support his family and to earn a livelihood. The Apex Court decided his compensation based on his nature of work. It was found that his loss of earning capacity was not less than 90%. Therefore, he was given a total compensation of Rs 4,01,400/- for mental agony Rs 30,000/-, for diet Rs 15,000/- and for loss of future earning Rs 3,56,400/.
3. Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
When the question of correlation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it was raised before the Supreme Court, it held that the effect of physical disability on the earning capacity of the victim is to be ascertained.
4. Ayyappan v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another A.I.R 2013
In this case, the Court held that if in case any liability is there concerning the third party risk and the vehicle is not insured then the risk will have to be borne by the owner himself.
5. M.R. Krishna Murthi v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others
The Supreme Court, in this case, asked the Government to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a Motor Accident Mediation Authority in every district to ensure speedy trial of accident claims. This judgment has two main features :
i) In the year 2017, 1,47,000 people lost their lives approximately which is more than the total population of Shillong, an Indian state.
ii) These deaths gave an exceptional rise to the number of accident claims that had already been there causing an increase in the number of backlog cases in Indian litigation.
The Apex Court, thus, realizing the necessity of resolving these claims asked for setting up of the Mediation Centers. The Court also pointed out the need for introducing an Indian Mediation Act in the parliament since the need for mediation was not only limited to motor accident claims.
6. National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
In this case, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for assessing the amount of compensation to be paid by the offender to the accident victims who are self-employed, or have fixed salary, or have a permanent salary. The Court held that the concept of 'just compensation' should be based on reasonableness, equity, and fairness.
CONCLUSION
An accident resulted in bodily injury or demise of victim brings pain and financial loss to the family . Motor Accidents are increasing day to day due to high speed, negligence and rush driving. A victim may be innocent or may be in contributory to the accident. In both cases the family of victim suffers the most and to compensate them tribunal or courts award compensation. The compensation should be "Just Compensation", it means it is based on fairness, equality and reasonable. A compensation should not be a medium of earning profit on the other hand it should not be less than as expected to compensate loss of earning of the deceased. A compensation should be such an amount that victim shall earn in his lifetime if, he is alive. The Just Compensation will be calculated by the tribunal and courts on the basis of case to case and on established juridical pronouncement of the Apex Court and according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Laws are made for the benefit of the people. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is made to prevent accidents, it is a very important law that requires serious implementation. Therefore, it is not only the Government that has to work towards its implementation but the public as well. Every person must make sure that he does not violate its provisions because in true sense it is the act of a person that results in an accident.
DISCLAIMER; the above article is only for information and knowledge of readers. The views expressed here are the personal views of the author and same should not be considered as professional advice. In case of necessity do consult with insurance professional for more clarity and understanding on the subject matter.
CAclubindia
