Road accidents, India: Legal aspects, compensation to victims
The laws
Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN
The Times of India, July 9, 2011
SC: Mughal-era legislation still governs road accident relief
Apart from the penal laws punishing drunk drivers running over people, the offender can be sued by the victim’s relatives for compensation under a law that was enacted when the last Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was the titular head of the throne at Delhi.
Taking note of this, the Supreme Court has asked the Centre to immediately commence work to draft a new law to replace the archaic legislation. It expressed serious concerns over the extreme inadequacies in the law governing suits for damage filed by relatives to claim compensation for death due to rash and negligent act, including drunken driving cases. It rapped the government for not taking note of a 20-year-old apex court judgment recommending drastic change in the 1855 law or a new legislation to meet the present-day challenges.
A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha said, “We are constrained to observe that a suit for damages for a murder of a person, like the present one, is filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. As the year of enactment shows, the Act dates back to the period when the greater part of the country was under the control of East India Company with the last Mughal ‘Emperor’, Bahadur Shah Zafar, as the ineffective, though titular monarch on the throne at Delhi.”
The Act was enacted to provide compensation to families for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong. “It is a matter of grave concern that such sensitive matters like payment of compensation and damages for death resulting from a wrongful or negligent act are governed by a law which is more than one and a half centuries old,” said Justice Alam, who wrote the judgment for the bench.
With anguish it remembered that a constitution bench of the Supreme Court in a 1990 judgment had said: “The Fatal Accidents Act, on account of its limited and restrictive application, is hardly suited to meet such challenge. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the old antiquated Act should be drastically amended or fresh legislation should be enacted which should contain appropriate provisions for various exigencies.” Justice Alam said: “It is unfortunate that the observations of the SC have so far gone completely unheeded.”
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) 2017
The Lok Sabha passed the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to reduce crashes, deaths and injuries on roads and bring reforms in the road transport sector. The proposed legislation, which will now go to the Rajya Sabha for approval, has provisions of making stringent penalties for traffic violations, checking fake driving licences and introducing measures to protect good Samaritans.
The bill also has provisions of making vehicle-makers responsible for design defects, recall of faulty vehicles and also holding roadowning and maintenance agencies or contractors accountable for road deaths and injuries on account of flaws on their part. Such agencies will have to cough up fines up to Rs 1lakh.
While most of the provisions were largely welcomed by members, there were reservations about government indirectly putting a cap on insurance compensation where victims or their kin agree to Rs 5 lakh for death and Rs 2.5 lakh for grievous injuries. In these cases, they can't pursue the case in the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal (MACT). This has co me under criticism from various quarters, though the government claims that in more than 70% of cases the average compensation awarded by the tribunal is less than Rs 5 lakh.
Road transport minister Nitin Gadkari said those who don't accept the compensation offered by insurance companies will be free to pursue the case in MACT and in those cases the insurance companies will pay the entire amount awarded.
The bill was passed by a voice vote after several amendments, moved by opposition members, were rejected. Though CPM member Sankar Prasad Datta pressed for division of votes after moving his amendment on enhancing compensation in accident cases, his amendment was defea ted by 37 votes in favour and 221 against.
Gadkari said it would not be possible to increase the third-party compensation in case of death to Rs 20 lakh as it would entail substantial hike in insurance premiums.
“Once we (BJP) complete five years, we would be able to save 50% of lives lost due to road accidents. We are working towards it,“ road transport and highways minister Nitin Gadkari said while insisting during his reply in the lower House that the basic aim of the bill is “to save human lives“.Annually , at least 5 lakh road crashes take place claiming around 1.5 lakh lives.
Organisations that have been campaigning for a stronger law have welcomed the passage of the Bill.
Court/ tribural/ commission judgements
Bus conductor not a skilled worker
February 20, 2023: The Times of India
Bengaluru : A bus conductor isn’t a skilled professional that one can argue about his prospects for gainful employment even after retirement, the Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka high court said while reducing the compensation given to the family of a Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation employee who died in a road accident.
The compensation was revised downwards by splitting the multiplier that was to be used to estimate separately the prospective earnings of the deceased for the remaining period of his service and post-retirement. The conductor died in 2016.
“The deceased had six years of service left. If the petitioner’s contention that the splitmultiplier method can’t be applied is to be considered, the deceased should have been a highly skilled person like a professor, a bank manager or someone with great demand and chances of post-retirement earnings,” the division bench of Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and T G Shivashankare Gowda said.
Using the split-multiplier method employed by the Supreme Court in a similar case, the bench fixed the compensation payable to bus conductor Yashawant Dafale’s family at Rs 29. 6 lakh, which is Rs 6 lakh less than what the motor vehicle accident claims tribunal at Vijayapura had announced.
Dafale was riding pillion on a motorcycle on October 21, 2016, when he was fatally injured in a road accident. His family moved the tribunal, seeking Rs 57 lakh in compensation. The tribunal awarded Rs 35. 6 lakh. The family and New India Assurance, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, separately challenged the verdict. The family argued that the compensation was not commensurate with the monthly salary of Rs 35,000 that Dafale had been getting, besides what he might have earned had he been alive. TNN
Car-bus crash not an ‘act of God’: HC
Swati Deshpande, April 8, 2024: The Times of India
Mumbai: Setting aside an almost two-decade-old MACT order, Bombay high court recently held that a head-on collision between a car and an state transport bus in 1997 was not an ‘act of God’, directing the insurance company and MSRTC to pay compensation of over Rs 20 lakh each to the three remaining family members of the car owner, Rajesh Sejpal, who died during pendency of his appeal.
In its April 4 order, a division bench of Justices A S Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain said that an ‘act of God’ would mean something not in control of the human being, but in this case, there was no averment like foggy weather and the collision was in the centre of the road. “Hence, it cannot be a case of an act of God and the principle of elimination applied by the tribunal is erroneous,” the bench said, holding both drivers ‘equally responsible and negligent’.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had in 2005 by a “process of elimination’’ ruled out negligence by either driver and held the accident to be an ‘act of God’.
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation bus had collided with the car carrying four people on Nov 14, 1997 at around 5.15pm. The car owner, Sejpal, was initially taken to Sion Hospital and later shifted to PD Hinduja Hospital where he was admitted for over five-and-a-half months. In 2000, he was admitted again for the injuries he suffered in the accident, but since his discharge from hospital in 1998, he remained bedridden till he passed away. Sejpal had sought Rs 10 crore as compensation before the tribunal, which rejected his claim in 2005; he then challenged it before HC.
HC has now held that it was 50:50 negligence on part of both vehicle drivers.
The compensation amounts have to be paid with interest at 6% per annum from March 3, 1998 within a period of eight weeks to the family.
Claims not restricted to third party: SC, 2025
AmitAnand Choudhary, August 5, 2025: The Times of India
New Delhi: Motor vehicle insurance protects a policyholder against claims made by a third party for damages due to the policyholder’s actions, but what about the claim against injury/death of the policyholder themselves in a road accident? Holding that family members of such a policyholder can also claim compensation, Supreme Court has referred the issue to a larger bench since there are contradictory verdicts of the apex court on the matter.
While hearing the compensation plea of a minor girl who lost both her parents in a car accident in which her father was on the driving seat, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act could be invoked for such a claim, as it is a special provision which overrides not only all the provisions of the Act but also any other law in force for the time being.
In this case, the minor was awarded compensation by the insurance company for the death of her mother but not for her father as he was himself the insured party.
The bench said: “… a claim under section 163A, as per the words employed in the provision, according to us covers every claim and is not restricted to a third party claim; without any requirement of establishing the negligence, if death or permanent disability is caused by reason of the motor accident. This would also take in the liability with respect to the death of an owner or a driver who stepped into the shoes of the owner, if the claim is made under section 163A dehors the statutory liability under section 147 or the contractual liability as reduced to writing in an insurance policy”.
The insurance company, however, took the stand that the petitioner, having succeeded to the estate of the owner of the vehicle who died in the accident cannot at the same time be the person who has the liability and is the recipient of the compensation.
“It would override the provisions under sections 147 & 149 along with the other provisions of the Act and the law regulating insurance as also the terms of the policy confining the claim with respect to an owner-driver to a fixed sum. This according to us is the intention of incorporating the non-obstante clause under Section 163A providing for no-fault liability claims, the compensation for which is restricted to the structured formula under the IInd Schedule. It is a beneficial piece of legislation brought in, keeping in mind the enhanced chances of an accident, resulting from the prevalence of vehicles in the overcrowded roads of today. It was a social security scheme, brought about considering the need for a more comprehensive scheme of ‘no-fault’ liability for reasons of the ever-increasing instances of motor vehicle accidents and the difficulty in proving rash and negligent driving,” the bench said.
]]
]]
]]
]]
Drivers of big-vehicles can’t always be liable
K Kaushik, February 15, 2021: The Times of India
It is high time that all stakeholders reviewed the mindset that driver of the bigger vehicle is responsible in road accidents involving big and small vehicles, as seen in a majority of FIRs registered, the Madras HC has said.
The court was hearing an appeal by Pudukottai transport corporation challenging the order of motor accidents claims tribunal (MACT) that had awarded compensation to an accident victim. The deceased Govindaraju was going to school along with three of his friends, Venkateshwaran, Prasanth and Gowthamanraj, on a two-wheeler in Pudukottai in 2011. Prasanth, who was riding, attempted to overtake a lorry when a speeding government bus which came in the opposite direction collided with the two-wheeler and Govindaraju died.
The MACT had awarded a compensation of Rs 6.62lakh in 2015 holding the bus driver responsible for the accident. Challenging the order, the transport corporation preferred the present appeal. The transport corporation counsel submitted that the person driving the two-wheeler had tried to overtake the lorry without noticing the bus, thus inviting the accident. Also, four people were travelling on the two-wheeler and since the deceased also contributed to the accident, he was liable for contributory negligence.
Justice K Murali Shankar observed that two-wheelers are designed for only two people to travel and anyone taking more than two will be committing an offence and is punishable under MV Act.
The judge observed that it is high time for all who are dealing with motor accident claims to review the mentality in considering the plight of the injured victim or legal heirs of deceased victim sympathetically and awarding compensation in accidents which occurred by violating laws. In this case, since four students were on two-wheeler, the court held that the rider and all pillion riders are guilty of negligence. Partially allowing the appeal, the judge directed the claimants to bear 50% of the amount awarded by the tribunal for contributory negligence.
Driver should not lose control even if other driver not driving properly
In no situation should a driver lose control over vehicle: Court
A driver is not expected to lose control over his vehicle even if another driver is not driving properly , a tribunal court has said while awarding Rs 19.60-lakh compensation to the widow, minor children and parents of a vegetable seller who died in a road accident.
The victim, Jugendra, was accused of driving his rickshaw-cart on the wrong side. The tribunal also pointed out that Jugendra's rickshaw-cart was on the extreme right side of the road, whereas the car which hit it had considerable road width available for driving his vehicle.
Jugendra, 28, died of head injuries on October 28, 2016 when a car rammed him. The erring driver, however, contended that the deceased was driving his cart on the wrong side of the road and it was the victim who hit the car.The insurance company with which the car was insured asserted that the accident took place due to the vegetable seller's negligence.
“Even if it is accepted, for the sake of arguments, that the deceased was moving with his rickshaw-cart on the wrong direction of the road, it cannot be brushed aside that rickshaw-cart is a slow moving vehicle...,“ said the motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) presiding officer Sanjay Sharma.
Eyewitness in every accident case unlikely: HC
Vasantha Kumar, February 25, 2024: The Times of India
Bengaluru: Karnataka HC’s Dharwad bench has observed that anticipating an eyewitness in every accident case is “far from realistic”, as it dismissed an insurance company’s petition contesting compensation on the grounds of absence of eyewitnesses.
Justice V Shrishananda explained that witnesses to accidents may not wish to involve themselves in legal process, either due to lack of interest or due to negative experiences or perceptions of police. Therefore, relying on eyewitness accounts in such situations may not be practical.
Younus and Shabbir Ahmed, who run pan stalls, had claimed compensation on the grounds that on Aug 27, 2013, a luggage vehicle had hit them near Mishrikoti Kadankoppa in Hubballi taluk, while they were proceeding along the Karwar-Hubballi road. They were awarded Rs 77,350 and nearly Rs 1.2 lakh, respectively, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi, on Aug 30, 2017. Shriram General Insurance, the vehicle insurer, appealed against the order in HC.
Justice V Shrishananda said tribunal had taken into consideration police records that sufficiently indicated the offending vehicle’s involvement. The judge said driver Suresh had also been chargesheeted for negligent driving.
The judge remarked that securing an eyewitness is straightforward in busy or urban areas where accidents occur, but in rural or less frequented roads, obtaining eyewitnesses poses challenges for various reasons.
]]
]]
]]
]] DIAROAD ACCIDENTS: INDIA
Foetus is like a child if 7 months old
Oct 29, 2023: The Times of India
In perhaps the first such order, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has ordered a travel company to pay around Rs 10 lakh with interest to a 40-year-old woman who suffered a miscarriage in a 2014 accident, observing that from the fifth month, a fetus can be treated as equal to a child in existence. The woman, then sevenmonth pregnant, was with her husband on a bike when acar hit them in Goregaon, a Mumbai suburb. While she gave birth to a stillborn boy, her husband died in the crash, for which she won Rs 2.4 crore as compensation.
Details
Rebecca Samervel, Oct 29, 2023: The Times of India
Mumbai : Observing that from five months a fetus in its mother’s womb till birth can be treated as equal to a child in existence, a motor accident claims tribunal, in perhaps the first such order, recently directed a tours and travel company to pay around Rs 10 lakh compensation with interest to a now 40year-old woman who had a miscarriage seven months into her pregnancy when a speeding car rammed head on into the bike her husband was riding in Goregaon in 2014. Her husband died in the accident and she gave birth to a stillborn boy. Both husband and wife worked for a multinational company.
In a separate order, the woman was awarded a compensation of around Rs 2.4 crore with interest as her husband died in the accident. In a third order, she too was awarded a compensation of around Rs 24 lakh with interest for the head in- juries she suffered. The compensation will have to be paid by Goregaon-based Amol Tours and Travels.
In the order related to the fetus, the tribunal said in several instances premature delivery takes place during the seventh month of pregnancy and the child survives which did not happen in the current case. “There is punishment for the offence of miscarriage. Therefore the mother is entitled to compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenity and enjoyment of life,” tribunal member Manish S Agrawal said.
While Rs 2 lakh was awarded towards compensation due to pain and suffering, Rs 1 lakh was towards loss of amenity and Rs 3 lakh towards enjoyment of life and loss of child.
The tribunal said the unborn child can be held to be a “person” who can be the subject of an action for damages for his death. “Had the accident not occurred the child would have seen the light of the day,” the tribunal said.
Homemaker’s/ housewife’s estimated income: SC
June 12, 2026: The Times of India
New Delhi : Calling housewives “nation builders”, Supreme Court for the first time said in case of a homemaker’s death in an accident, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal will calculate the compensation to be paid to her family by assuming her monthly income to be a minimum of Rs 30,000, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
Pained by the 25-year delay, 22 of which were because the matter remained pending in Punjab and Haryana HC, in grant of compensation to the family of a homemaker who died in an accident on Nov 25, 2001, SC said the economy and stability of a house was wholly dependent on the woman and enhanced compensation from Rs 8.4 lakh to Rs 63 lakh, with interest of 7.5% from 2001.
Homemakers are nation builders: SC
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh said women were largely responsible for the preparation of human capital on which the dreams of being the world’s largest economy, among other things, rested.
The bench said if the compensation was not paid within three months, the interest rate would increase to 9%, and six months later, it would go up to 12% per annum. It also listed 123 accident compensation claim cases, which were dealt with by a bench led by Justice Karol, and said these remained pending for an average eight years in HCs. It requested the chief justices concerned to give primacy to long-pending cases for early disposal.
Writing the judgment, Justice Karol said, “It is high time that the invisible is made visible or the veil is pierced to make what can be partially seen come out in the open. ‘Homemakers’, to put it directly, ac tually are the ‘nation builders’, and they ought to be recognised as such.”
Defining the heads for computing accidental death compensation under a new judicially devised formula, ‘loss of domestic care’, the bench said the first of them refers to the loss of the homemaker’s ability to manage all chores of the household; the second pertained to children who lose their mother, and third, the husband loses his life partner who helped run the house smoothly.
Scoffing at the gender stereotype approach in computing compensation by assuming the notional income of a homemaker to be Rs 3,000 per month, the Supreme Court bench said, “It is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependent on earning members when, in reality, the household’s functioning depends substantially on the homemaker. The earning members are, in fact, solely dependent on the homemaker, but alas, this reality does not receive the acknowledgment.”
When the woman cooks, cleans and does other household chores to support the paid workforce whose efforts sustain economic activities and productivity, how could these women be considered to have no income, the bench wondered.
“Women’s unpaid caregiving work is estimated to contribute 15-17% to India’s GDP, yet it remains unpaid and unrecognised. To put the enormity of what is missed out by these conventional methods, it may be noted that every day, around 16 billion individual hours are devoted to unpaid domestic work and care,” the SC said.
Illegitimate children entitled to payout
February 13, 2023: The Times of India
Bengaluru : An illegitimate child is also a legal representative of a deceased parent and hence entitled to a share of compensation for the latter’s death in a road accident in accordance with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Karnataka high court ruled.
Justice HP Sandesh cited judgments of the Kerala and Allahabad high courts while awarding a 40% share of the modified compensation of Rs 13. 3 lakh for the death of his biological father, C Mallikarjuna, in a car crash in Bengaluru in 2012. The court, however, rejected his mother’s separate claim for compensationon the ground that she had failed to establish her case.
Mallikarjuna’s parents were the other claimants to compensation through petitions filed with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Bengaluru. On January 27, 2016, the tribunal rejected the claims of the child and his mother while granting Rs 5 lakh in compensation to the parents of the deceased. The verdict was challenged by both sides.
On the woman’s claim, Justice Sandesh said Mallikarjuna and she were in a live-in relationship when she was still married to her first husband.
The boy was born in 2006. Four years later, the woman divorced her first husband, but she didn’t get married to Mallikarjuna, the judge noted. “Though the claimant contended that she performed the last rituals along with his parents, no document was placed to that effect,” the court said. The court added interest at 6% annually to the boy’s 40% share of the compensation amount, to be kept in a fixed deposit till he turns 18. The remaining 60% of the compensation will go to Mallikarjuna’s parents.
Passengers travelling illegally n goods vehicle: Insurer must pay/ HC
June 29, 2024: The Times of India
Ahmedabad : Insurance companies must compensate victims of motor accidents, even if the passengers were travelling illegally in a goods vehicle, Gujarat HChas ruled. The insurer can later recover the amount from the vehicleowner, HC said. The case involved a tanker accident in Banaskantha in May 1995, which resulted in injuries and fatalities among the passengers. Five claims were made under Motor Vehicles Act. In 2005, a tribunal ordered New India Assurance CoLtd to compensate the victims and later reclaim the amount from the tanker owner, as the vehicle was insured.
The insurance company contested this decision in HC, arguing that it should not be held responsible for illegal passengers in a goods vehicle. They maintained that the vehicle’s insurance did not cover passengers since it was meant to carry only one person, and the vehicle owner violated provisions of MV Act.
After hearing the case, Justice Sandeep Bhatt said, “The manifest object of provisions of MV Act is to ensure that the party, who suffers injuries due to use of motorcycle, will be able to get damages for the injuries sustained or death. If a goods vehicle is used for carrying passengers, against the insurance policy, as is in the case on hand, the claimants cannot suffer for technicalities of whether the owner/insurance company should pay the amount.” TNN
]]
]]
]]
]] DIAROAD ACCIDENTS: INDIA
Jaywalking
2020: Court clean chit for driver who ran over jaywalker
Rebecca Samervel, February 20, 2020: The Times of India
Cautioning jaywalkers, a magistrate’s court acquitted a 65-year-old woman, booked in 2011 for ramming into a pedestrian at Marine Drive in Mumbai, after it found that he was crossing the road when the signal was green.
“It is successfully brought on record that her (Kalpana Marchant) defence is probable that her driving was not rash but the accident took place due to rashness and sudden crossing of road on the part of deceased Sadanand Bhatde,” the court said.
Marchant had halted after the accident on January 22, 2011, and Bhatde was lying unconscious. Police took him to hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. Marchant was booked for rash driving and causing death by negligence.
Among the three witnesses were two cops and an eyewitness. The eyewitness told the court he was driving his car in the middle lane. He said a pedestrian crossed the road when the signal was green, and he was hit by a car from the lane on the right. Relying on the witness, the court pointed out that he admitted that Marchant and he were driving at normal speed and the pedestrian came from the left of the road.
Jaywalker is 10% responsible for his death: HC 2023
July 10, 2023: The Times of India
Bengaluru : Stating that a 38-year-old Hassan man, who was mowed down by a KSRTC bus, had also contributed to the accident due to his own negligence, the Karnataka high court reduced the modified compensation awarded in the case. The court observed that the victim hadn’t checked for vehicles coming from either side before crossing the highway, amounting to negligence on his part.
While enhancing the Rs 9. 6 lakh compensation awarded by a tribunal to the man’s mother to Rs 12. 8 lakh, Justice CM Joshi reduced the modified relief amount by 10% on the ground that the victim’s share of negligence in the incident was as much.
The accident occurred on the morning of May 6, 2016 when Madhusudhana, a ginger seller, was riding pillion on his brother-in-law Shantharaju’s motorcycle. As Madhusudhana wanted to answer nature’s call, Shantharaju stopped the two-wheeler in a place near Kasthuravalli gate. When Madhusudhana was crossing the road, a speeding KSRTC bus coming from Hassan side hit him, killing him on the spot. Thereafter, his mother Puttathayamma alias Girijamma, a resident of Hassan city, moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. On February 9, 2018, the tribunal awarded Rs 9. 6 lakh as compensation to her.
Not satisfied with the same, she filed an appeal before HC. KSRTC too contested the order, claiming that the compensation awarded was exorbitant. After hearing both parties and perusing the materials placed before the court, Justice Joshi pointed out that the accident had happened around 5. 30am and the evidence of the bus driver would show that it was a straight road and the deceased could have seen vehicles coming from either side. TNN
]]
]]
]]
]] DIAROAD ACCIDENTS: INDIA
Religious organisation can be legal heir of a deceased member
[In a 1st, HC lets religious head to be legal heir of dead nun Suresh.Kumar TNN| In a 1st, HC lets religious head to be legal heir of dead nun | The Times of India]
In a first, the Madras high court recognised a religious organisation as the legal heir of a deceased person, and declared it eligible to receive compensation in a motor accident claims case.
Justice A M Basheer Ahamed permitted St Maria Auxilum Sisters’s Congress, represented by its mother general Sister Animariya, to claim compensation for the death of Sister Alangara Mary.
On March 1, 2002, Mary died in a road accident. Claiming the death occurred due to rash driving of the bus, the Sisters’s Congress in which Mary was a member approached the motor accident tribunal for ex gratia.
]]
]]
]]
]] DIAROAD ACCIDENTS: INDIA
Traffic offenders tobe tried under both IPC, MV Act: SC
AmitAnand Choudhary, Oct 9, 2019: The Times of India
The Supreme Court has held that those violating traffic rules and causing accidents by rash and negligent driving could be tried and punished separately under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), besides the Motor Vehicles Act.
Setting aside a Gauhati high court ruling that provisions of IPC cannot be invoked against traffic rule violators and they could be punished only under the MV Act, a bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna said ingredients of offences under both statutes are different and an offender can be tried and punished independently under them.
It said the principle that the MV Act, being a special law, should prevail over the general law has no application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under both the IPC and the MV Act.
The bench said the MV Act is a beneficial legislation whose primary objective is to provide a statutory scheme for compensation of victims of accidents, while the IPC is punitive and deterrent in nature and its main objective is to punish offenders.
Loss to family due to accident deaths can’t be quantified: SC
The court said keeping IPC out of traffic rule violation cases would lead to anomalous situation as the accused could be let off lightly since offences under the MV Act are compoundable in nature and no proceedings would be initiated if the accused pleads guilty and deposits the fine imposed. It also said there is no provision under the MV Act to deal separately with offences causing death or grievous hurt.
“If the IPC gives way to the MV Act and the provisions of CrPC succumb to provisions of the MV Act as held by the HC, even cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and causing death or grievous hurt or simple hurt by rash and negligent driving would become compoundable. Such an interpretation would have the consequence of letting an offender get away with a fine by pleading guilty, without having to face any prosecution for the offence committed,” the bench said.
“This court has emphasised on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing accidents. The financial loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a family on losing a bread-winner, or any other member cannot be quantified,” it said.
Tyre burst causing accident is not rash driving
July 3, 2022: The Times of India
Mumbai: Finding that in an incident where an accident occurs after a vehicle’s tyre bursts, it cannot be termed as rash and negligent driving, a magistrate court on Tuesday acquitted a 36-year-old Malabar Hill woman who was booked in 2017 for ramming into a biker and leaving him with a fractured hand, reports Rebecca Samervel. The court said that the possibility of a technical fault cannot be ruled out. “If the tyre of a running vehicle burst naturally and the driver of the vehicle lost balance. It is a technical fault and if an accident occurs due to a tyre burst it certainly cannot be termed as rash and negligent driving,” metropolitan magistrate Nadeem A Patel said. The woman, Indu Kapahi, was acquitted form charges relating to rash driving and causing grievous hurt by act endangering the life or personal safety of others. The victim Suryakant Rathod submitted that on July 19, 2017, at about 11. 10am while he was going towards Grant Road from Nawrojee Gamadia Road on his motorcycle, he was riding at a slow speed. However, the car rammed into him from behind. Rathod alleged that the car was at high speed due to which he fell down. The investigating officer told the court that during the course of investigations it was revealed that the tyre of the car had burst.
Without proof of accident, car owner wins claim
June 25, 2026: The Times of India
Surat : A car owner has secured an insurance claim of Rs 1.3 lakh even though he failed to conclusively establish the circumstances of the accident that damaged his vehicle, reports Vishal Patadiya .
Navsari resident Chirag Desai claimed his car met with an accident with a truck June 20, 2023. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd appointed a surveyor to assess the damage. On July 27, 2023, it rejected the claim, because the “cause of loss was not justified”.
After examining the evidence, Navsari Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission noted the complainant had failed to provide key details about the alleged collision, including the truck’s registration number and the driver’s identity. It observed that although the accident itself remained unproven, the damage to the vehicle was undisputed.
“Based on the circumstances and suspicious aspects of the case, the complainant has failed to prove the accident. However, the fact remains that the car was damaged, making him eligible for compensation for the loss,” the commission observed.
2017/ SC wants road safety policy, dedicated safety funds
Put Safety Policy, Fund In Place: SC
Expressing distress that there’s one death every three minutes in road accidents in India, but legal heirs of only half of the victims receive compensation, the Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions to states to set up a road safety policy as well as dedicated safety funds.
The directions came after the SC took note of the heavy toll of human lives due to road accidents, with 139,671 deaths in 2014 and 146,133 in 2015. Though insurance companies paid Rs 11,480 crore as compensation in 2015-16, half the legal claimants of remuneration did not get their due.
Frame road safety policies by Jan 31, defaulting states told
The SC found Delhi, Assam, Nagaland, Tripura and two other UTs to be odd ones out as they have not formed a road safety policy. Accepting amicus curiae Gaurav Agrawal’s request, the SC directed defaulting states and UTs to frame policies by January 31. The bench said states which have not done so should set up a road safety fund by March 31, 2018.
The SC agreed with Agrawal that one of the main reasons for accidents was poor quality of roads, improper design and inadequate curve, angle and depth which was needed to be maintained at crucial junctions and said the Centre should review protocols for design.
The grim death toll forced the Supreme Court on Thursday to issue directions to bolster road safety measures. A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said huge amounts running into hundreds of crores of rupees have been earmarked for road safety, yet accidents cause a very large number of deaths every year.
The bench said: “There was one death almost every three minutes due to road accidents. Unfortunately, the legal heirs of half the victims were not compensated (perhaps being unaware of their entitlement).”
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Lokur stressed on the creation of a road safety fund from the money collected from traffic violators. “States and UTs which have not yet established a road safety fund should do so not later than March 31, 2018 and report back to the committee on road safety (headed by retired SC Judge KS Radhakrishnan). The corpus of the road safety fund will be from the fines collected for traffic violations and the fund will be utilised for meeting expenses relating to road safety,” he said.
Delhi is again a defaulter among states and UTs with regard to setting up of a road safety fund, which has already been established by Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. The court also criticised states and UTs for their lukewarm response to put in place a road safety action plan to reduce the number of accidents and fatality rates. It directed them to do so latest by March 31, 2018.
“The ministry of road transport and highways (MoRTH) is of the opinion that the protocol for road design and identification of black spots needs to be reviewed and enforced. Accordingly, it is directed that MoRTH should publish a protocol for identification and rectification of black spots and take necessary steps for improving the design of roads to make them safe,” the bench said.
The SC also felt MoRTH needs to undertake road safety audits urgently as it was essential to reduce the possibility of accidents. The ministry as well as the amicus agreed that road safety audit should include design stage audit of new road projects of five or more kilometres. Road design audit earlier applied only to mega road projects.
Asking state and UT governments to strictly implement lane-driving rules, the SC asked the governments to set up at least one trauma care centre in every district “since it is on record that treatment soon after a road accident is crucial for saving the life of a victim”.
2021, SC: Value of homemaker’s work same as husband’s
Dhananjay Mahapatra, January 6, 2021: The Times of India
The Supreme Court said the value of a woman’s work at home was no less than that of her office-going husband and enhanced the compensation to relatives of a couple who died when a car hit their scooter in April 2014 in Delhi.
A bench of Justices N V Ramana and Surya Kant enhanced the compensation by Rs 11.20 lakh to Rs 33.20 lakh to be paid to the father of the deceased man by the insurance company with 9% annual interest from May 2014.
Justice Ramana expanded the idea first espoused by the SC in Lata Wadhwa case in 2001 when it had dealt with the issue of compensation for victims of a fire during a function and had ruled that it should be granted to housewives on the basis of services rendered by them in the house. He said as per the 2011 Census, nearly 159.85 million women mentioned “household work” as their main occupation, as against only 5.79 million men. He also referred to a recent report of the National Statistical Office titled ‘Time Use in India-2019’ which suggested that, on an average, women spend nearly 299 minutes a day on unpaid domestic services for household members versus 97 minutes by men.
Similarly, in a day, women spend 134 minutes on unpaid caregiving services for household members as compared to 76 minutes by men. The total time spent on these activities per day makes the picture in India even clearer — women on an average spend 16.9% and 2.6% of their day on unpaid domestic services and unpaid caregiving services for household members respectively, while men spend 1.7% and 0.8&, Justice Ramana said. “The sheer amount of time and effort that is dedicated to household work by individuals, who are more likely to be women than men, is not surprising when one considers the plethora of activities a homemaker undertakes. A homemaker often prepares food for the entire family, manages the procurement of groceries and other household shopping needs, cleans and manages the house and its surroundings, undertakes decoration, repairs and maintenance work, looks after the needs of the children and any aged member of the household, manages budgets and so much more,” he said.
In rural households, they often also assist in sowing, harvesting and transplanting activities in farms, apart from tending cattle, he said. The issue of fixing notional income for a homemaker, therefore, served an extremely important function and was a recognition of the multitude of women engaged in this activity, whether by choice or as a result of social/ cultural norms, the SC said.
“It signals to society at large that the law and courts of the land believe in the value of the labour, services and sacrifices of homemakers. It is an acceptance of the idea that these activities contribute in a very real way to the economic condition of the family, and the economy of the nation, regardless of the fact that it may have been traditionally excluded from economic analyses. It is a reflection of changing attitudes and mindsets and of our international law obligations. And, most importantly, it is a step towards the constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity of life to all individuals,” the bench said.
SC: If accident victim disabled 100%, be liberal with damages
AmitAnand Choudahary, March 30, 2022: The Times of India
New Delhi: Remarking that courts should take a liberal view in awarding compensation to victims who are left 100% disabled and also suffer mental disabilities after road accidents, the Supreme Court on Tuesday extended its helping hand to one such child and awarded Rs 50 lakh compensation with 7. 5% interest per annum. The total amount could come to about Rs 1 crore as the accident took place in 12 years ago.
Abench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian said a child who suffers severe disability is to be compensated also for the loss of marriage prospects and loss of income which he would have earned after attending majority and that amount be decided on the basis of minimum wage fixed by the state government for skilled labours. In this case, the child had met with a very serious accident in 2010 when he was five years old. He was not able to move both his legs after the accident and had complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary incontinence and bowel constipation. He became bed-bed ridden and dependent on others. Referring to SC’s earlier verdict, the bench said, “. . . the courts or the tribunals assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding the compensation”.
Taking into account his medical condition, the bench enhanced the compensation amount more than three times from Rs 13. 46 lakh awarded by the Karnataka HC, which did not grant compensation on the count of loss of marriage prospects and loss of future earnings due to disability. The SC awarded Rs 49. 93 lakh compensation, out of which Rs 11. 18 lakh was given for loss of future earnings and Rs 3 lakh for loss of marriage prospects.
“. . . In view of the physical condition, the appellant is en- titled to one attendant for the rest of his life though he may be able to walk with the help of an assistant device. The device also requires to be replaced every five years. Therefore, it is reasonable to award cost of two devices, i. e. Rs. 10 lakh. The appellant has not only lost his childhood but also adult life,” it said.
The bench calculated loss of income on the basis of minimum wage prevailing in Karnataka in 2010 for skilled labour, which was Rs 3,700 per month, with 40% for future prospects. “Thus, the compensation works out to be Rs 3,700 plus 40%, which amounts to Rs 5180 per month. The multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of the age of the appellant. The loss of future earnings due to the permanent disability for life thus works out to be Rs 11,18,880,” it said.
The court said out of the total amount, Rs1 0 lakh would be disbursed to his father and the rest of the amount would be invested in one or more fixed deposits receipts and the interest amount shall be payable to his guardian every month.
Drunk driving
Bar the drunk from driving: Bombay HC
The Times of India Jan 08 2016
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
The Bombay high court directed the Centre to consider adopting a “zero tolerance policy“ towards drunk driving and make appropriate changes in the law.
Observing that “too many lives had been lost“ to the “lethal cocktail“ of drinking and driving, a division bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Gautam Patel recommended action against those driving under the influence irrespective of the amount of alcohol in blood. At present, motorists with alcohol exceeding 30mg per 100ml of blood are liable to be charged under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
“We find nothing to suggest that some quantity of alcohol in the blood can be considered `safe',“ said the judges, adding that there was no fundamental right to drink. The HC also asked the state government to direct the police and transport authorities to immediately suspend driving licences of persons against whom DUI cases are registered. Driving licences are being suspended for three months for drunk driving since January 1 in the city.
Calling the permissible alcohol limits prescribed in the law as theoretical, the judges added: “There is, in fact, no reason why any person who has had any amount to drink should be permitted to drive at all. Given the alternatives available, and having regard to the manifest risks especially to third parties, we would strenuously urge the adoption by the Central government of a zero tolerance policy toward drunk driving.“
The high court said there was no fundamental right to drink, “let alone to drink any amount and then get behind the wheel of a motor car or on to a two-wheeler. Even the most minute impairment caused by alcohol intake might have the most disastrous consequences“.
MP: Drunk drivers in fatal accidents may get life
Dipak Dash, June 4, 2019: The Times of India
Drunk drivers in fatal accidents may get life
New Delhi:
Madhya Pradesh police has asked investigating officers (IOs) to book drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents under Section-304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which attracts a jail term of up to life imprisonment.
Till now, such accused were generally booked under 304A (death due to negligence), which attracts a jail term of up to two years or fine or both. However, there have been few exceptional cases such as the infamous hit and run case involving actor Salman Khan, when police slapped Section-304.
In a circular, MP police has said that in fatal accidents where there is proof against the driver of being drunk, the IO can take action under Section 304. It said there have been a rise in the number of road fatalities due to drunk driving and the SC-appointed panel on road safety has asked for reducing deaths by cracking down on such drivers. The circular said that in all accidents where drivers are booked under Section-304A, they must undergo medical test and the report must be kept for record. It added that the IO must also find out from the medical officer whether there is alcohol content in the blood of the accused.
Section-304, which deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, says the accused shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or jail of up to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. According to the latest road accident data, 4,776 persons died and 11,776 were injured in accidents caused due to driving under the influence in 2017.
Only 25% of blame on drunk driver who dies in mishap
A motor accident claims tribunal recently held that if you are drunk and die in an accident, your contributory negligence in the accident amounts to just 25%; the rest of the blame lies with the other party .
The tribunal's reasoning came while deciding the 2008 case of a 33-year-old drunk biker who was killed after a BMC dumper truck rammed into his two-wheeler. At the time of the fatal accident, the biker was riding with two others on Holi.
The civic body has now been ordered to pay a total compensation of Rs 38.1 lakh to the biker's kin. The tribunal held that driver of the heavy vehicle was “more responsible for causing the accident“.
Referring to the FIR, the tribunal said, “The deceased was under the influence of alcohol when he was riding the motorcycle but, at the same time, the driver of the dumper was duty-bound to control his vehicle.“
While calculating the compensation, the tribunal kept in mind the victim's an nual income of Rs 1.4 lakh and loss of future earnings.
It stated that compensation payable to the family was Rs 24.75 lakh. However, while deducting 25% towards the victim's contributory negligence, the tribunal brought down the figure to Rs 18.6 lakh. Additionally, the compensation amount also includes Rs 1 lakh towards loss of companionship of a spouse, Rs 1 lakh towards the loss of love and affection suffered by the mother and son and Rs 50,000 for loss of estate and towards funeral expenses incurred. The total amount of Rs 21 lakh also attracts an annual simple interest, bringing the total amount to Rs 38.1 lakh.
The application for compensation was filed in June 2008 by six members of the victim, Pravin Mane's family, including his wife, minor son, mother and siblings.
The victim ran a garment business at the time of his death. The family told the tribunal that the accident took place on March 22, 2008, around 2.15pm. They claimed that while Mane was riding the bike with due care and caution at a moderate speed, the truck rammed into it at full speed in a rash and negligent manner. Mane sustained multiple injuries and died on the way to the hospital.
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) denied that the driver, on his way from the Deonar dumping ground to collect garbage from Vikhroli, was rash and negligent.
BMC alleged that the driver had given a signal before taking a left turn. It alleged that at that time, Mane's bike came at high speed from the opposite direction and collided with the front and middle portion of the truck. “All the three riders seated on the motorcycle were under the influence of alcohol and so the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased as he could not control his motor cycle,“ the BMC submitted.
Liability of car owner
If car sold but ownership not changed
Dhananjay Mahapatra, February 7, 2018: The Times of India
If you sold your car and did not bother to change the ownership in registration records, you would be liable for compensation claims arising from accidents involving the vehicle even if another person owned and drove the car, the Supreme Court ruled.
This painful legal truth dawned upon Vijay Kumar, who had sold his car to another person on July 12, 2007. That person further sold the car on September 18, 2008. This third owner sold the car to one Naveen Kumar, who claimed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that he had sold it to one Meer Singh.
‘Court can’t render decision contrary to law’
While the car was allegedly in possession of fifth owner Meer Singh but driven by another person, an accident took place on May 27, 2009, in which one person was killed. The tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs 3.85 lakh and ordered the orginal buyer Vijay Kumar, whose name figured in the registration certificate, to be jointly liable with the driver of the car.
Vijay Kumar challenged this order before the Punjab and Haryana high court. A single judge bench allowed the appeal saying the original owner need not be held liable when there was clear evidence of sale of vehicle and the last owner admitted ownership. One of the successive owners, through advocate Rishi Malhotra, challenged the HC judgment in the SC and said the court could not render a decision contrary to law.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
2019/ Woman gets ₹26L after losing leg in mishap, ₹2L for loss of marriage hope
Rebecca Samervel, Oct 20, 2019: The Times of India
In a recent payout of Rs 28 lakh awarded to a 34-year-old woman who lost a limb in an accident in 2015, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal included Rs 2 lakh in total compensation for “loss of future marriage prospects”.
The tribunal observed that of late, finding a suitable matrimonial match has become a herculean task for even a normal person and impossible for someone who has lost a leg. It relied on a Madras high court order, which said if a person remained unmarried, it was an altogether different matter, but if a person is compelled to remain a bachelor due to injuries sustained and consequent amputation, it would be “utmost agonising”.
“It was impossible for her to get a suitable groom. Therefore, she is entitled to Rs 2 lakh for loss of marital prospects. In addition to this, it would be reasonable to award compensation of Rs 2 lakh for the loss of amenities and pleasure of life, and Rs 2 lakh for her inability to attend social functions in future,” the tribunal said.
Other heads under which the payout was calculated included loss of income due to disability, special diet, conveyance and attendant charges, costs for an artificial limb and medical expenses.
Woman’s mom gets ₹16L for serious injuries
In the plea submitted before the tribunal in 2016, it was alleged that on November 14, 2015 about 3.30pm, when the woman and her mother were on their way to Thane in an autorickshaw driven by her father, a speeding SUV rammed into them at Kanjurmarg. The woman deposed in the tribunal and iterated the details of the incident.
Observing that her testimony was corroborated by documentary evidence which included the FIR, the tribunal said, “I have no hesitation to hold that applicant has proved that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.”
In two other orders, the woman’s 54-year-old mother was awarded a compensation of around Rs 16 lakh for serious injuries suffered in the accident, and her 57-year-old father was awarded a payout of around Rs 60,000. The compensations will have to be paid by SBI General Insurance and the vehicle owner, Bhayandarbased Shree Tours & Travels.
2021/ ₹2cr for accident victim: HC, SC
Oct 4, 2021: The Times of India
A Supreme Court bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy has dismissed an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited against an order of the Madras HC that enhanced the compensation paid to the family of an accident victim by 1,700% from 10.4 lakh to 1.85 crore based on Form-16, salary slip and other tax papers filed by the victim’s family.
On October 14, 2013, Subash Babu, a 35-year-old manager of a private firm, was killed in an accident while driving a car from Perumanallur to Erode. His wife and other family members who were travelling with him escaped with injuries. His wife, an eyewitness, told Tiruppur motor accident claims tribunal that a van which was going in front of their car turned right without showing any signal and their car rammed against the van and her husband died in the impact.
The tribunal, however, fixed 75% contributory negligence on the victim based on police FIR, which blamed Babu for negligent driving, and awarded Rs10.4 lakh as compensation by fixing Babu’s monthly income at Rs 20,000 per month.
Aggrieved by the order, the family moved the HC. In August 2018, Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of the Madras HC quashed the order of the tribunal and held that since there was no rebuttal witness provided by the insurance company, the accident happened only due to the negligence of the van driver. Taking into consideration the victim’s tax records and pay slip, the court fixed the victim’s annual income at 12.3 lakh and computed the compensation to be paid by the insurance company as 1.85 crore.
Agreeing with the HC ruling, the Supreme Court bench said, “In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the FIR. If any evidence before the tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the FIR, the evidence which is recorded before the tribunal has to be given weightage.”
Offences under the Motor Vehicle Act
Using Bluetooth phone while driving not an offence
Dipak Dash, March 18, 2020: The Times of India
Use of bluetooth for communication while driving and talking through a fixed phone on dashboard won’t be treated as a violation of Motor Vehicle Act norms. The road transport ministry is also likely to bring more clarity on the provision defining “use of hand-held device” while driving as more and more states/ UTs notify the specific fine for the offence.
The Delhi government last week fixed Rs 5,000 and Rs 10,000 fine for first and second offence for using “hand-held phone” while driving. Sources said representatives from Delhi Police had recently taken up the need to explain this provision in detail with the road transport ministry so that there is no ambiguity in the implementation of this provision.
However, road safety experts said drivers should avoid using phones in any form while driving since it distracts attention and is increasingly proving to be more fatal for drivers as also pedestrians.
Even countries like the United States have witnessed high number of deaths due to distracted driving, which claimed 2,841 lives in 2018 alone. Among those killed were 1,730 drivers, 605 passengers, 400 pedestrians and 77 bicyclists. Its highway safety agency, NHTSA even carried out an intensive campaign of “U Drive U Text U Pay” to crackdown on distracted driving.
Distracted driving has been described as driving while doing another activity that takes your attention away from driving. The Delhi government last week fixed Rs 5,000 and Rs 10,000 fine for first and second offence for using ‘hand-held phone’ while driving
Out of-court settlement
...cannot quash offence Sec 304A IPC:
Causing death due to rash and negligent driving is an offence against society and the offence cannot be quashed because of an outof-court settlement between the accused and the deceased victim's family , the Bombay high court has ruled.
The court was hearing a petition by Mahim resident Krishna Raju, who was booked for driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently , and knocking down Sinclair Valadares (70), who was crossing the street in 2015.
Valadares's two sons had filed affidavits saying they had no objection to quashing of the case against Raju.They said the accident was not due to rash driving by Ra ju, but their father had glanced back on seeing a heavy vehicle near the Mahim Causeway and dashed against the motorcycle.
The court refused to quash the chargesheet on the basis of the settlement between Raju and the Valadares family . “The offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code presents a situation where a victim has lost his life due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. The offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is not an offence which is private, but is an offence which has serious impact on society as a whole.Hence, such an offence cannot be quashed as legal representatives of the deceased have entered into a settlement or compromise, or that they have given no objection for quashing,“ said a division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Anuja Prabhudessai. “Quashing such a chargesheet for offence under Section 304A on the ground of compromise or settlement will militate against all cannons of law,“ the judges added.
Raju, however, obtained relief when the court went into the merits of the case.The accident had occurred on Gen Arunkumar Vaidya Road near Mahim Causeway at 2pm on March 25, 2015. The sole witness, a shopkeeper, had told police that the pedestrian reached near the divider but turned back on seeing a heavy vehicle coming from the opposite lane. He then lost his balance and dashed against the motorcycle.
“The material in the chargesheet, taken at its face value, does not indicate that Raju had driven the motorcycle in a rash or negligent matter, or that the death of the pedestrian was caused due to the accused's rash and negligent act,“ the court said while quashing the first information report and dropping all charges against Raju.
Compensation to victims/ their kin
The principles
Assistants’ cost must be factored in for compensation for accident-crippled
Dhananjay Mahapatra, Oct 29, 2021: The Times of India
In an important ruling, the Supreme Court has said that crippled survivors of accidents while seeking compensation cannot be viewed by courts as a modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more”.
A bench of Justices R S Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said not only would the injured person be entitled to be compensated for all the bodily sufferings, future loss of earning and future medical care expenses, he/ she would also entitled to the cost of hiring assistants for leading a dignified life if he/she is unable to conduct the daily life without assistance. The bench enhanced the compensation to an accident survivor from Rs 6 lakh to Rs 28 lakh.
Writing the judgment, Justice Roy said, “A person therefore is not only to be compensated for the injury suffered due to the accident but also for the loss suffered on account of the injury and his inability to lead the life he led, prior to the life altering event.”
This ruling came in a case from Kerala, in which one Jithendran, while riding pillion on a motorcycle, was hit by a speeding car. He suffered multiple injuries in his body and head, leaving him almost a paraplegic, unable to conduct his daily life without assistance.
Justice Roy narrated the case of the 21-year-old Jithendran after he suffered injuries in the accident that happened in April 2001. “While the permanent disability as certified by the doctors stands at 69%,the same by no means, adequately reflects the travails the impaired claimant will have to face all his life,” the Supreme Court bench said.
Compensation a right of mishap victims: HC
Shibu Thomas, TNN | Aug 29, 2013
MUMBAI: Victims of road accidents and their next of kin have a right under law to claim compensation, the Bombay high court has ruled. Twenty-three years after a Yavatmal-based bank officer lost his life in a road accident involving an MSRTC bus, Justice A P Bhangale ordered the state transport undertaking to pay Rs 6.51 lakh, along with interest, to his wife and three children.
The judge threw out the MSRTC's contention that the deceased bank officer, Mukundrao Dongre (38), could not be categorized as a third party eligible for compensation under the third-party risk insurance rule.
"I find it difficult to accept the submission that the victim was a person 'other than third party'," said the judge. "The Motor Vehicle Act provides for mandatory third-party insurance, which is compulsory for any motor vehicle owner. The objective of the act is to ensure that the third party receives just and fair compensation from the owner of the offending motor vehicle and receives compensation."
The court said the law protects victims of road accidents. "The right of the victim of a road accident to claim compensation is statutory. The legislature in its wisdom enacted the (law) to protect the victims of road accidents, who may be travelling in the vehicle or using the road, and thereby made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless the vehicle is compulsorily insured against third-party risk."
The court said the MSRTC could not escape paying compensation by claiming that the other vehicle was responsible for the accident. "If liability is denied, it is for the MSRTC to plead and prove rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep if according to it the jeep was the offending motor vehicle... Mere allegation is not enough."
Mere absence of or fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defences available to the MSRTC against the third parties."
Compensation a right, not dole: SC
Dhananjay Mahapatra, March 8, 2018: The Times of India
Criticising the traditional judicial mindset of doling out compensation to the kin of victims and those injured in motor vehicle accidents, the SC has ruled that award of compensation is an entitlement under law which must be commensurate with the pain and suffering of such victims.
“In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity,” said a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Chandrachud set the tone of judicial computation of just compensation to the kin of accident victims and those injured by saying, “The measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore dignity of being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering.” The ruling came on Tuesday on a petition filed by one Jagdish, a carpenter by profession, who lost both his hands and suffered serious disability in an accident involving his motorcycle and a dumper in November, 2011. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kota, Rajasthan, awarded him a compensation of Rs 12.8 lakh. The Rajashthan HC enhanced it by Rs 2.2 lakh.
Compensation be made through direct bank transfer: SC
Dhananjay Mahapatra, March 20, 2025: The Times of India
New Delhi : As an average of more than five lakh people die or get injured in road accidents every year and corresponding number of compensation claims get filed before tribunals, Supreme Court has ordered cutting down of delay in payment of recompense money to the kin or injured through direct bank transfer (DBT) method.
In general, insurance companies, where the compensation amount claimed by the kin or injured is not disputed, deposit the money before motor accident claims tribunal (MACT), which delays the amount reaching the relatives of the dead or the injured as in many cases they remain unaware of such deposits made by the insurer.
Enhancing the compensation payable from Rs 12 lakh, determined by HC, to Rs 36.8 lakh in a 2014 accident claim case, a bench of J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal said “a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the tribunal.”
SC said MACTs can ask the claimants at the initial stage to furnish their bank accounts and direct the insurer to directly transfer the undisputed amount to their accounts. It said that the same DBT method can be adopted by the insurers when the tribunal makes the final award on the claims.
The bench passed this order considering the large number of deaths and injuries caused by road accidents in the last five years.
For the year 2018, road accident deaths were 1.5 lakh, and 4.6 lakh were injured; 2019 — 1.5 lakh deaths and 4.4 lakh injuries; 2020 — 1.3 lakh deaths and 3.4 injuries; 2021 — 1.5 lakh deaths and 3.8 lakh injuries; 2022 – 1.6 lakh deaths and 4.4 lakh injuries.
Mentioning that India has done wonders in popularising digital payments, the bench said the courts and insurance companies can adopt the same for direct transfer of money to claimants instead of making them wait for months to get compensation.
]]
]]
]]
]]
Courts can order more than sought: SC
Oct 14, 2022: The Times of India
New Delhi: The Supreme Court said there is n o r estriction on a tribunal/ court to award compensation that exceeds the amount claimed by the victim’s family in road accident cases and awarded a solatium of Rs 5 lakh despite the family of a 12-year old boy who died in an accident claiming for Rs 2 lakh.
Enhancing the amount of compensation, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J K Maheshwari said the amount should be just and reasonable as per law, irrespective of the amount claimed. “ . . . there is no restriction that the tribunal/court cannota ward compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The tribunal/court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount,” the bench said while referring to apex court’ s earlier ruling. In this case, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) had awarded lump sum compensation of Rs 1. 5 lakh to the family which was enhanced to Rs 2 lakh by Jhar khand High Court, up to the value of the claim petition. Noting that the deceased was a brilliant student and was studying in a private school, the court said that his notional earning should be considered at Rs 30,000 per month for deciding loss of income for the family.
“In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking at the computation made he rein above. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs 5 lakh,” the bench said.
Foetus: Death in mishap
Rs 2.5L relief for unborn child’s death in mishap
HC Compares Dead Foetus With Minor Child
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009
2010
New Delhi: In an important ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that an unborn dead foetus can be considered on par with a minor child while fixing compensation. It directed an insurance company to pay extra compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh to a man who lost his pregnant wife in a road accident in 2008.
HC allowed an appeal filed by one Prakash seeking compensation for his unborn child as his plea was ignored by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT). The court, however, made it clear that the dead foetus cannot be compared with a grown-up child, because by then a child’s presence in the life of his or her parents has created enough memories for them to feel greater pain at the loss of their child. This pain will be lesser were an unborn child to die as in that case there will be no memories to cherish.
‘‘This court holds that an unborn child — aged five months onwards in mother’s womb till its birth — is treated as equal to a child... the foetus is another life in a woman and loss of foetus is actually loss of child in the offing,’’ HC reasoned, while allowing the appeal and the compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh along with an interest rate of 7.5 per annum to Prakash.
While the MACT had already awarded Rs 6.11 lakh to the petitioner for the accident in which his wife died with sevenmonth-old foetus in her womb, the tribunal had not taken into account the death of foetus as a factor.
HC directed the insurance company to deposit Rs 2 lakh with the UCO bank as fixed deposit within a month and release rest of the amount to the victim’s family.
On his part, the petitioner argued that the MACT Tribunal had ignored the plea on a ground that post-mortem report has not mentioned anything about the presence of foetus. The counsel argued the road accident took place on June 8, 2008 and the foetus was removed from the woman’s womb on June 17 and the mother died on August 14.
Clarifying that the foetus was absent at the time of the victim’s death, the lawyer submitted the statements of doctors from Shushruta Trauma Centre and LNJP who treated the woman soon after the accident and removed the foetus after the unborn baby died in the womb due to the accident.
toireporter@timesgroup.com
Future prospects basis for payouts: SC
HIGHLIGHTS
The ruling settles the controversy in the light of contradictory verdicts by different SC benches.
The bench, however, agreed that compensation for future prospects could not be same for all.
In a verdict intended to provide "just" compensation to victims of road accidents, the Supreme Court ruled that compensation will be based on the future prospects of a deceased person rather than only loss of present income.
A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan framed guidelines for making an estimate of future prospects mandatory, irrespective of whether the victim had a permanent job or was self-employed. The amount under the head of future prospects has been capped at 50% of income in case of a permanent job and 40% in case of self-employed or a fixed salary job (where there is no provision for revision).
The ruling settles the controversy in the light of contradictory verdicts by different SC benches.
It also fixed compensation under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium (deprivation of benefits of a family relationship) and funeral at Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000, respectively. This is to be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years.
"To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust.
The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act," the bench said.
"In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite," it said.
The apex court said it is a wrong perception that compensation under the head of future prospects should not be given in case where the deceased was self-employed or having a fixed salary job.
"Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance," the bench said.
It, however, agreed that compensation for future prospects could not be same for all and the amount granted to family members of a deceased who had a permanent job must be higher than for someone who is self-employed or on a fixed salary.
"In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be apittance," it said.
Future prospects of housewives
Rebecca Samervel, December 13, 2020: The Times of India
Ruling that compensation for “loss of future prospects” can also be granted in the case of a housewife’s death, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) last week ordered the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) to pay around Rs 17 lakh to the husband and two minor children of a 33-year-old woman who was killed after a bus rammed into their bike at Mankhurd in 2014. “Loss of future prospects” is among the heads covered while awarding compensations in motor accident cases.
The tribunal fixed the deceased housewife’s notional salary at Rs 5,000 per month. A possible future increase in this notional monthly income was pegged at 40%, bringing the loss of future prospects to Rs 7,000 per month.
The tribunal cited a recent Supreme Court judgment and said, “The housewife who contributes for the welfare of the family and upbringing for the children must be given future prospects in as much as with the passage of time, the utility of her services increases in the family.” It stated that a housewife’s services to the family are invaluable. “The housewife renders very important duty. She looks after her husband and children passionately round the clock and creates the comfort zone in the house. In the absence of her in a house for a single day realises her importance (sic) to the other family members,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal refuted the defence that only when the housewife renders skilled services to the family does the question of future prospects come. It said that judgement does not make any distinction between a skilled and unskilled housewife. “In fact housewife is a housewife and with the passage of time her skill in tackling and handling household affairs increases,” the tribunal said, quoting the Supreme Court judgement.
While the victim’s husband and older son will each receive 30% of the compensation amount, the younger son will receive the remaining 40%.It however rejected Archana’s parentsin-law as claimants.
The motor claims tribunal fixed the housewife’s notional salary at Rs 5,000 per month. A future increase in this income was pegged at 40%, bringing the loss of future prospects to Rs 7,000 per month
The poor have future prospects too: HC
Even the poor and marginalised have “future prospects”, Delhi high court observed, asking an insurance company to immediately compensate the family of an accident victim who didn’t have a regular salary.
Justice R K Gauba took a dim view of the argument by the insurance company that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had wrongly hiked the compensation amount by including “future prospects” of the victim who wasn’t salaried.
The court pointed out that the insurer’s argument that such benefit of future prospects can be given only if their proven income ignores the ground realities. “If this argument were to be accepted, the marginal sections
of the society, who are unable to muster proof as to the nature of avocation or their earnings, will always be denied just compensation,” said Justice Gauba.
The judge emphasised that a rickshaw puller, cobbler, hawker, porter or similar other daily earner can perhaps never bring on record the proof of earning he brings home to his family at the end of each working day.
“Such labour class does not have resources to earn sufficiently and more often than not, cannot even dream of saving any money for the rainy day. They generally would not have access to a bank, from which they would be able to arrange proof, should the unfortunate need arise, as to the level of their earnings,” the court observed, wondering how this category can then satisfy the demand of an insurer to produce proof of income.
Even as the high court agreed to some of the other arguments of the insurer, Bajaj Alliance, it held it liable to pay Rs 12.26 lakh as compensation, partially modifying the award granted by the MACT court.
While calculating the amount, MACT, in absence of any evidence about the nature of job or earnings of Jitender Uppal, the victim, adopted the minimum wages payable to a matriculate as the notional income. It then added element of future prospects of increase to the extent of 50% and after usual deductions, including the age of Uppal being 31, announced the award of roughly Rs 13.8 lakh.
But the insurer cited Supreme Court rulings to argue that for the award, there should be income which is established by evidence. The benefit of future prospects cannot be extended in cases where there is no proof of the nature of employment of the victim or his income, it maintained.
HC answered the argument by specifying that SC has taken note of the fact that the category of self-employed persons may include even an unskilled labourer.
“The court has gone by the expression “income” and has not drawn a distinction between the income earned in the form of “salary” or one earned by any other mode. The income may accrue as profits from business, fee or remuneration (by whatever name called) from the professional services or wages earned by services rendered, even such services as are rendered through manual labour,” HC noted.
Financial aid to victim
Mar 03 2015
Amit Choudhary
Increases compensation in HP case
SC: States must aid accident victim's kin if accused is poor
If death is caused by rash and negligent driving and the driver is unable to pay adequate compensation to the victim's family because of his poor financial status, the state government must step in and pay the amount, the Supreme Court has ruled. “We are of the view that where the accused is unable to pay adequate compensation, the court ought to have awarded compensation under Section 357A from the funds available under the Victim Compensation Scheme framed under the said section,“ a bench of Justices T S Thakur and A K Goel said.
It increased the amount of compensation awarded by the Himachal Pradesh high court to family members of a girl who died in a road accident from Rs 40,000 to Rs 4 lakh. Considering the poor financial condition of the convicted truck driver, the bench directed him to pay Rs 1 lakh and asked the state government to pay the remaining Rs 3 lakh.
The bench said if the driver failed to pay the amount, he had to undergo a six months' jail term and in that case the entire compensation of Rs 4 lakh would have to be paid by the state government.
“We modify the impugned order passed by the high court and enhance the compensation to be paid by the driver to Rs1 lakh to be paid within four months failing which the sentence awarded by the court of sessions shall stand revived,“ it said.
“In addition, we direct the state of Himachal Pradesh to pay an interim compensation of Rs 3 lakh. In case the driver fails to pay any part of the compensation, that part of compensation will also be paid by the state so that the heirs of the victim get total sum of Rs 4 lakh towards compensation. The amount already paid may be adjusted,“ the bench said.
Heirs can claim payout
Vasantha Kumar, August 29, 2022: The Times of India
Bengaluru : Legal heirs of a person injured in a vehicle accident have the statutory right to claim compensation after his/her death, the Karnataka high court has said.
The HC made the observation while hearing a petition from relatives of court official MBasavarajappa, who was injured in an autorickshaw accident. The medical papers issued by McGann Hospital, Shivamogga, states that he had afractured hip joint and socket and was hospitalised twice for more than 15 days and five days.
On July 19 last year, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 1. 15 lakh as compensation. Unhappy with the amount, the claimant challenged the order, but died during pendency of the case. His family and legal representatives then fought his case.
Insurer New India Insurance Company said the appeal should close as the claimant had died while his case was yet to be settled. Rejecting the contention, Justice NS Sanjay Gowda directed the company to pay Rs 1. 75 lakh with 6% interest to the legal representatives of Basavarajappa.
“In respect of a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the victim of a motor vehicle accident acquires a statutory right to claim compensation. This statutory right to claim compensation under a special enactment cannot be subjected to any limitations that would be imposed in respect of a claim under the general law,” the judge said.
Marriage prospects lost. MACT: Pay victim for it
A 28-year-old city woman injured in a 2011 road mishap has been granted Rs 60.56 lakh as compensation by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). In what is a rare instance, the MACT has included in the payout Rs 2 lakh for “loss of future marriage prospects“.
“It is clear that due to the injuries she has missed out on marriage prospects. Hence, an amount of Rs 2 lakh is awarded towards loss of marriage prospects,“ the tribunal said on Saturday . The woman, who was a grade A student doing her firstyear BCom, was knocked down by a speeding car on November 1, 2011, in front of her grandfather and sister, resulting in brain and pelvic injuries that needed hospitalisation for over a month. The injuries have now limited the woman's physical and mental capacities.
The woman filed an application before the tribunal in December 2011 against the alleged car owner, Less Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, and the insurer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd. The victim said while she was crossing the Sion-Trombay Road near Somaiya ground at around 8am on November 1, 2011, a car came from Chembur towards Sion in a “rash manner“ and hit her from behind, resulting in her serious injuries. After being treated at Sion Hospital, she was shifted to a hospital in her hometown Meerut, where she was admitted from December 9, 2011, till January 9, 2012. Her treatment continued at a specialised neurology hospital until October 2012.
The woman told the tribunal that due to the injuries, she was under severe pain and unable to do her daily work with the same stamina and power as prior to the accident.She also complained that she was unable to attend college.The doctor, who deposed on the nature of the injuries, explained that it was a “generalized injury to the brain, affecting motor function, thought function, memory and speech functions, leading to hampering of normal day-to-day activities“.
Mediclaim paid be deducted from victim’s total relief: HC
January 13, 2025: The Times of India
Bengaluru : The amount received by an accident victim under a mediclaim policy must be deducted from the total compensation under the head of medical expenses and hospitalisation charges, Karnataka HC has held based on Motor Vehicles Act.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar directed Oriental Insurance Company to pay Rs 4.93 lakh along with interest of 6% a year to the family of S Hanumanthappa, a resident of Marathahalli in Bengaluru, after deducting Rs 1.8 lakh he had received from mediclaim. Hanumanthappa and his wife were travelling on a bike on Dec 10, 2008 when an autorickshaw dashed against them. He suffered fractures and was treated in various hospitals. TNN
Deduct ₹1.8L from ₹5.2L granted as med expenses to claimant, orders HC
He moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru. He claimed he was aged about 58 years, working as a teacher, and was drawing a salary of Rs 10,000 per month. On March 22, 2013, the tribunal awarded Rs 6.7 lakh, including Rs 5.2 lakh under the head of medical expenses.
The insurer challenged the order, contending that Rs 5.2 lakh medical expenses was not correct, as Hanumanthappa got mediclaim reimbursements earlier.
Justice Sanjeevkumar cited another Karnataka HC case in which the court had held that if the claimant got his medical expenses reimbursed, they can be deducted from accident compensation.
“Therefore, in the present case, the amount received by the claimant under mediclaim is liable to be deducted from medical expenses while determining the compensation under the said head. The appellant (insurer) has produced evidence that the claimant received a mediclaim reimbursement amount of Rs 1.8 lakh. This fact is not disputed by the respondents/claimants,” the judge said. The HC ordered a deduction of Rs 1.8 lakh from Rs 5.2 lakh awarded as medical expenses to Hanumanthappa, determining the payout under this head at Rs 3.4 lakh.
]]
]]
]]
]]
Mother-in-law, if Dependent, can get payout: SC
AmitAnand Choudhary, Oct 26, 2021: The Times of India
Holding that Motor Vehicles (MV) Act should be given a wider interpretation and all dependents of a deceased be allowed to claim compensation, the Supreme Court ruled that a dependent mother-in-law is also entitled to claim in case of death of her son-in-law.
“In our view, the term ‘legal representative’ should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent,” a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer adn Krishna Murari said.
“We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation,” it said while setting aside an order of Kerala HC order precluding a motherin-law as legal representative of the deceased despite her living with her daughter’s family for a long time and being dependent on him.
The bench said, “It is not uncommon in Indian society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in--law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in--law for her maintenance. The Appellant herein may not be a legal heir of the deceased, but she certainly suffered on account of his death.”
Sell uninsured vehicles to pay victims: SC, 2018
The Supreme Court ordered all states to amend their rules under the Motor Vehicles Act whereby uninsured motor vehicles involved in accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, will be auctioned and the proceeds deposited with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to pay compensation to victims.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice DY Chandrachud directed the states to amend their rules within 12 weeks. At present, this rule is there only in Delhi.
The court was hearing a plea by an accident victim’s wife who contended that the Motor Vehicles Act made third-party insurance mandatory for vehicles and it was an offence to drive an uninsured vehicle.
Advocate Radhika Gautam, appearing for petitioner Usha Devi, said that the mandate behind the law was that the family of those killed or injured in accidents should not be made to litigate for years to get compensation from the owner/driver of the involved vehicle. The Act intended that the kin of those killed or injured could approach MACT for speedy adjudication of claims and direction to insurance companies to pay up, the plea said.
Devi’s husband was killed in a road accident in January 2015 while her son was injured. She moved the MACT to seek compensation, but the tribunal found that the rogue vehicle was uninsured.
Walking on footpath, not road, partly causes the accident
Rebecca Samervel, Ignore footpath, lose part of relief, November 6, 2017: The Times of India
Tribunal Cuts Damages To Accident Victim
If you are hit by a vehicle while walking on the road instead of the footpath, you share the blame for the accident. A Motor Accidents' Claims Tribunal has held a 27-year-old CA accountable for 25% contributory negligence after a speeding car hit her and ran over her foot on a Mumbai road in 2011.
She had sought Rs 25 lakh in compensation for, among other things, her injuries and income lost on account of six months' bed rest, but the tribunal calculated the payout as Rs 5.14 lakh. Deducting Rs 1.28 lakh towards contributory negligence, it ordered Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd and car owner Devidas Raimalani to pay her Rs 3.85 lakh. The car owner and insurance firm will also have to pay her Rs 2 lakh as interest.
The woman, in her cross-examination before the tribunal, had claimed there was no footpath close to where she was walking. But the tribunal referred to the panchnama, which showed the accident site was three feet from the footpath. “There is no doubt that to the side of the road there was a footpath, but the petitioner was not using the footpath. On the contrary , she was walking on the tar road. Therefore, certainly , there was some negligence on the part of the petitioner,“ the tribunal held.Talking of the driver's role, it said that as the road was crowded, it was his duty to drive cautiously and maintain adequate distance from the woman.
Among the factors on which the compensation was calculated, the tribunal included Rs 1 lakh towards the loss of the woman's marriage prospects. It noted the limp ensuing from the accident adversely affected her marriage prospects.
According to the woman's submission, on January 4, 2011, around 2.05pm, then aged 20, she was walking with a when a speeding car came from behind, without so much as a horn in warning, and hit her. She stated that she was admitted to a hospital for six days, and had to undergo bone-realignment surgery for her foot.
SC: Payout should be ₹2 lakh
AmitAnand Choudhary, February 28, 2019: The Times of India
Frame Rules, Court Tells Stakeholders
The Supreme Court accepted the recommendation of the court-appointed committee on road safety to increase the minimum compensation for death in a hit and-run case from the existing Rs 25,000 to Rs 2 lakh and asked all stakeholders, including the Centre, to hold consultations for framing a scheme of payment.
A bench of Justices S A Bobde, Deepak Gupta and Vineet Saran said the present amount of compensation is too less and the law should be amended to enhance the amount. It said the recommendations made by the committee headed by its retired judge Justice K S Radhakrishnan were reasonable and could be implemented till the law is amended. As per the report, a minimum compensation of Rs 50,000 should be paid to any one grievously injured in a hit-and-run case.
Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, told the bench that a fund of Rs 90 crore was lying with General Insurance Council for disbursal to victims of hit-and-run cases and that the amount should be used for the payment of compensation. He said out of around 1.60 lakh deaths reported in road mishaps in India in 2016, around 20,000 people had died in hitand-run accidents.
Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand informed the bench that the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017 was introduced in Parliament and was passed by Lok Sabha but it is pending in Rajya Sabha. She said the bill proposed to enhance the amount of compensation for victims of hit-and-run case.
The bench thereafter asked Agrawal to hold consultations with all stakeholders including Centre and General Insurance Council to frame a scheme of payment of compensation to ensure that the amount is paid to the right claimant.
The bench also suggested that the payment of compensation should be streamlined and victims should not be harassed to get the benefit. It said the FIR registered by police about a road accident should be sufficient to award compensation to the victim or the family even if no formal claim petition is filed. It said a copy of the FIR should be immediately sent to the authority concerned to disburse the amount to victims.
The apex court had on April 22, 2014, constituted the committee headed by Justice Radhakrishnan, which has submitted several reports on road safety.
The compensation under hit-and-run cases are made from a Solatium Fund which is contributed by general insurance industry under an agreed formula. As per the present procedure, the victim or his legal representative has to make an application to the claim enquiry officer in each Taluka. After due enquiries, the officer submits a report together with certificate of post mortem or injury certificate to the claims settlement commissioner who will process the claims and sanction the payment within 15 days from the receipt of report from the officer.
Housewives/ homemakers
‘A housewife/ homemaker is a skilled worker’
`Housewife a skilled worker': The Times of India, May 01 2017
A housewife renders services of a skilled worker, a Delhi court has observed.
The observation was made by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while awarding the compensation of Rs 30.63 lakh to a 32-year-old homemaker who lost one of her legs in a road accident four years ago.
The woman, who was crossing a road with her six-month old son in 2013, got hit by a rashly-driven RTV and suffered 80% disability while the child suffered head injury .
“A housewife renders services as a skilled workman... Since the disability suffered by the claimant is 80% with regard to right lower limb, loss qua the entire body will be 40%...“ presiding officer of the tribunal Arun Bhardwaj said.
Homemakers’ Contribution recognised
Aamir Khan, Tribunal hails homemaker, awards Rs 19L to kin, June 21, 2017: The Times of India
“A wife or a mother does not work by the clock,“ a court observed while recognising the contribution of a homemaker, who died in an accident five years ago. The court awarded Rs 19 lakh as compensation towards “loss of love and affec tion“ for the victim's kin.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) presiding officer Kiran Bansal said, “In India, courts have recognised the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money .“ It noted that the “gratuitous services“ rendered by the wife, with true lo ve and affection, to her children and husband while managing the household affairs could not be equated with services rendered by others.
The tribunal made the observations while hearing claim petitions filed by the family members of 38-year-old Shakuntala, who died in a car-truck collision on August 13, 2012. Her daughter, Renu, who was 17 then, sustained injuries and remained in hospital for nine days. The mother and daughter were on their way to Aligarh from Delhi and were travelling by car when a truck, rushing at breakneck speed, hit their car. Truck driver Ramesh Chand denied any invol vement in the accident, saying he was falsely implicated in the case.
The UP State Road Transport Corporation, under which the bus plied on a contractual basis, accused the car diver of being negligent and argued that truck was parked when the car, being rashly driven, hit it. The tribunal, however, relied on the statement of the victim's husband Suresh Chand, who had given details of the accident and furnished relevant documents.
The victim's daughter, Renu, had filed a separate petition, citing loss of time hampering her education that also jeopardised her future prospects.
It praised the women who took care of their family throughout day and night. Therefore, after considering the victim's age and the loss of love and affection to her four children and husband, the tribunal awarded them Rs 18 lakh as compensation. He daughter, on the other hand, was granted Rs 1.71 lakh, among other entitlements, for pain and suffering. “She is entitled to the loss of study for a period of three months,“ the tribunal said.
The direction for the re spective compensations was given to the insurance company with which the truck was insured.
Homemakers’ Contribution calculated
Calculating the compensation for the family of a 35-year-old housewife killed in an accident, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal used as benchmark a domestic help’s salary.
The Mumbai tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs 4,500 per month after taking into consideration the prevailing pay of a help for chores such as doing the dishes and sweeping. “This income was quantified by considering and comparing the roundthe-clock household services rendered by the deceased to her family vis-a-vis the cost of a maid,” it said.
It thus ordered motorcycle owner Ajinkya Khupte and Oriental Insurance Company to pay victim Fatima Khan’s husband Mohammed and their four minor kids a compensation of Rs 5.5 lakh.
On September 11, around 8pm, Fatima was crossing a road when a speeding bike hit her. Fatima suffered serious injuries and was taken to JJ hospital, where she died a day later. Mohammed moved the tribunal in November 2012. He claimed the accident was the result of the biker’s gross negligence and rashness, and sought Rs 6 lakh as compensation.
The other factors considered in the tribunal’s calculation included loss of consortium (the right of association and companionship with one’s spouse and funeral expenses. The tribunal said Rs 50,000 was to be given to Mohammed, and the rest to their children.
The tribunal refuted the insurance company’s submission that, since Fatima was not earning, compensation could not be paid by assuming her notional income. It cited a Supreme Court order that said the notional income of a housewife was to be taken as up to Rs 5,000 per month, and that the services rendered by a mother, sister and wife were immensely valuable and unparalleled, and could not be calculated in terms of money since they were rooted in love and affection. The death of such a female member created a great vacuum in the family, it added.
“Even though one cannot equate and compare the services of wife, mother and sister with the services rendered by a maid servant, the hard reality of life causes me to imagine the charges of a regular maid servant to calculate the notional income of this deceased mother,” the tribunal head said.
The tribunal relied on the FIR and the statement of Fatima’s brother-in-law, an eyewitness, to establish the biker’s fault. “The motorcycle rider was in control of running the vehicle and he was expected to take care of pedestrians, particularly women, children and senior citizens on road. Therefore, I conclude that it is due to the rash and negligent riding of the said motorcycle, deceased Fatima died,” the tribunal held.
Hearing a plea for compensation, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal took into account the prevailing pay of a help for doing the dishes and sweeping.
Payments made
Hit and run cases: 2017-23
Dipak Dash, March 19, 2023: The Times of India
From: Dipak Dash, March 19, 2023: The Times of India
New Delhi : The government has paid claims in barely 5,036 hit-and-run cases — 3,209 for deaths and 1,827 for persons left grievously injured — since 2017-18, according to official data. This is only 6% of the number of persons killed and left injured every year in hit and run cases on Indian roads.
On an average, 80,000 people either lose their lives or are left seriously injured in hit and run cases annually.
In a written reply to a question from BJD’s Anubhav Mohanty in Lok Sabha this week, the road transport and highways ministry has said that around Rs 12 crore claim has been paid for the 5,036 cases between April 2017 and February this year. Government sources admitted that the trend of compensation paid in hit-and-run cases over the years is a “matter of concern” and this needs immediate attention. Hit-and-run cases are those in which police are unable to identify the offending vehicle or its owner and hence in these cases, the compensation is paid from the government’s solatium fund. Earlier,the compensation paid from this fund was Rs 25,000 in the event of each death and Rs 12,500 for grievous injuries.
In the amended Motor Vehicle Act, this compensation has been increased eightfold — Rs 2 lakh in case of death and Rs 50,000 in case of grievous injuries — and the new rule has become applicable from April 2022. The data provided by the ministry show between April 2022 and February 2023, claims have been paid in 72 death cases and only six in cases of injuries. The government has paid Rs 1. 47 crore as compensation during the current financial year.
As per the “Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme” notified in 2022, such victims and their family members must get the compensation in less than three months and the amount should be transferred online. To meet the compensation requirement, the government has created a Motor Vehicles Accident Fund.
Sources said the government is now planning to fix the issues that might be resulting in few victims and their kin applying for the compensation.
Hit and run cases: 2022
Oct 16, 2023: The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Kin of only 205 victims of hit-and-run cases filed claims for compensation in 2022-23 and barely in 95 cases, a compensation of Rs 1.8 crore in total was paid, according to government data. The claims of the remaining 110 are pending to be cleared.
The slow pace of filing for claims, despite the government increasing the compensation to Rs 2 lakh for death and Rs 50,000 for serious injuries, indicates poor awareness among people about how to apply for compensation. Annually, around 25,000 people die and another 43,000 are left injured in hit-and-run cases across the country.
Hit-and-run cases are those where the driver involved in the crash flees from the accident spot with the vehicle.
Considering that the earlier compensation amount was meagre, the government in 2019 increased it by eight and four times for death and serious injuries respectively. To operationalise this higher compensation, the road transport ministry set up the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund in February 2022 and the fund became operational from April 1, 2022. Earlier, the compensations in such cases were provided from the solatium fund.
As per the first annual report of the fund and compensation paid, the hit-and-run compensation account was activated by crediting of Rs 76.2 crore from the erstwhile 'Solatium Scheme’.
The report mentions that compensation of Rs 1.7 crore was disbursed to the kin of 87 persons killed in such road crashes and another Rs 4 lakh was paid to the victims left seriously injured. It said that the number of claims are set to increase in the coming years.
In March, the road transport ministry had informed the Lok Sabha that compensation had been paid barely for 5,036 hit-and-run cases - 3,209 for deaths and 1,827 for persons left grievously injured - since 2017-18. This is only 6% of the number of persons killed and left injured every year in such cases.
]]
]]
]]
]] DIAROAD ACCIDENTS: INDIA
Payouts: some landmarks
₹ 3 crore in 2023
Rebecca Samervel, February 5, 2023: The Times of India
Mumbai : In one of its highest payouts, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has ordered a tanker owner and an insurance company to pay a compensation of around Rs 3. 11 crore to the family of a Kandivli-based 37-year-old security services company’s zonal head who died when the heavy vehicle rammed into the scooter on which he was riding pillion in 2018. The money will have to be paid to the mother, wife and minor daughters of the victim Prashant Vishwasra. While calculating the compensation amount, the tribunal considered the victim’s annual salary of Rs 17 lakh.
Relying on the FIR against the tanker driver and other police documents, the tribunal said, “Thus, the evidence on record goes to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending tanker and the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained in that accident. ” The claim was filed against tanker owner Dina B Gawade and National Insurance Co Ltd.
The tanker owner did not appear despite the tribunal’s notice, hence, the matter proceeded ex parte against her. The insurance company opposed the plea and submitted that the application was bad as the rider and owner of the scooter was not made party to the proceedings.
Further, according to the insurance company the tanker driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. “Thus, the driver has violated the rules laid down under the Motor Vehicle Act and thus there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy,” it submitted.
The tribunal referred to the report of a doctor who had examined the tanker. The doctor had noted that there was smell of alcohol from mouth and breath of the driver but his speech and gait were normal and he was able to walk on straight line. The reportshowed that the observations of mascular co-ordination were normal, knee reflex present, ankle reflex present and he was having orientation of time as well as place.
Biker 75% guilty, HC cuts payout by 75%
Nov 27, 2023: The Times of India
Bengaluru : A sketch of the spot, photographs and other evidence proved costly to a motorcyclist in a 15-year-old accident case, with the Karnataka high court reducing the compensation awarded to him by three quarters.
After sifting through the material before it, the high court recently held that there was 75% contributory negligence on his part as he had swerved to the extreme right of the road and dashed against a KSRTC bus coming from opposite direction. Justice Lalitha Kanneghanti directed the KSRTC to pay a reduced compensation Rs 84,500 with 6% interest, i.e, 25% of the Rs 3.4 lakh compensation awarded by a tribunal to claimant Veerabhadra alias Veerabhadraswamy, a resident of Kanakapura town.
The tribunal at Bengaluru had held that the rider was guilty of 10% contributory negligence and was responsible for causing the accident.
Veerabhadra had suffered serious injuries in the accident that occurred on March 4, 2008 near Chikkagowdanahalli village, close to his hometown, when his motorcycle dashed against the KSRTC bus coming from Sathanur towards Kanakapura.
Veerabhadra had sought Rs 10 lakh compensation, citing that he had incurred huge expenses towards his medical treatment and recuperation among others, but the tribunal by its order dated July 28, 2011 said he was entitled to receive Rs 3.4 lakh as relief. The KSRTC was told to pay up the compensation, holding that there was 90% negligence on the part of its driver and 10% was on the part of the claimant. The KSRTC appealed against the order before the HC, contending that the tribunal’s decision is contrary to evidence placed before it. However, Veerabhadra remained absent.
Justice Kanneghanti noted that as per the spot sketch, the right front wheel of the bus was on the footpath, right rear wheel was on the tar road and the motorcycle was lying beneath the front bumper of the KSRTC bus. “In view of the same, this court is inclined to apportion the negligence at 75% on the claimant and 25% on the driver of the KSRTC bus,” the judge said, while partly allowing the appeal filed by the KSRTC.
See also
Cities of India: the best and the worst
Road accidents, India: Legal aspects, compensation to victims
