CASE TITLE:
S. RAJASEEKARAN VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
BENCH:
JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA & JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
12.01. 2024
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: S. RAJASEEKARAN
RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
SUBJECT
The court engages in the examination of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with a specific emphasis on the proficient execution of compensation for victims involved in hit and run accidents. Through a comprehensive analysis, the court delves into the provisions of the Act, expressing apprehensions regarding the insufficient utilization of the Compensation Scheme, and subsequently enunciates directives to rectify these concerns. Furthermore, the court underscores the imperative nature of public awareness, the establishment of monitoring committees, and the potential implementation of amendments to augment the efficacy of the Scheme. The introduction elucidates the fundamental components and obstacles tackled in the case to enhance comprehension.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 161 of the MV Act (as applicable from April 1, 2022)
The Central Government is responsible for providing compensation in the event of hit and run motor accidents, specifically for cases involving death or severe injury. The compensation amounts are predetermined, with Rs. 2 lakhs allocated for death and Rs. 50,000 designated for grievous hurt, or as determined by the Central Government.
The Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022
The Scheme was implemented in accordance with Section 161(3) of the MV Act. It establishes a Standing Committee and District Level Committees to supervise and assess the execution of the Scheme. Furthermore, it outlines a structure for the application process, involving a Claims Enquiry Officer and Claims Settlement Commissioner. Additionally, the Scheme specifies the involvement of the General Insurance Council in facilitating electronic payments for compensation.
BRIEF FACTS
The court tackled the matter of executing provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pertaining to indemnification in hit and run collisions.
The court deliberated on Section 161 of the MV Act, which requires the Central Government to furnish recompense for hit and run incidents in accordance with the Act and the corresponding Scheme.
The Scheme, which will be in effect starting from April 1, 2022, establishes Standing and District Level Committees to supervise its operations while highlighting the significance of public awareness and prompt processing of compensation claims.
The court emphasized apprehensions regarding the limited consciousness and implementation of the Scheme, as demonstrated by hit and run accident statistics and claim reports.
The annual report of the General Insurance Council and the response from the Minister unveiled a notable decrease in claim applications and disbursements. However, the Standing Committee, tasked with addressing these concerns, failed to provide concrete measures for their efficient execution.
Standing Committee was directed to thoroughly examine the report of the General Insurance Council and provide recommendations for amendments, if deemed necessary.
Obligation of timely communication to victims regarding the compensation Scheme was enforced.Monitoring Committee at the district level to guarantee the implementation of the Scheme was established and directed the prompt submission of reports and established a chain of communication through legal service authorities
The proposed amendments entail the contemplation of extending the temporal threshold for asserting recompense and the progressive augmentation of remuneration sums.
The Standing Committee has been granted a period of four months to adhere to instructions and furnish reports.
The Central Government was directed to contemplate augmenting the compensation amounts and prolonging the time limit, with anticipated decisions to be made within a span of eight weeks.
QUESTIONS RAISED
What is the primary concern presented in the case concerning the execution of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022?
What specific directions has the court issued to tackle the issue of the underutilization of the compensation scheme for hit and run accidents, and what measures are suggested for enhancing public awareness and implementation?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
The petitioner highlights that, despite the scheme's existence, a minuscule proportion of eligible claimants are actively capitalizing on its benefits. They contend that the dearth of awareness among victims regarding the scheme could potentially account for this diminished utilization.
The petitioner cites statistics from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, revealing a notable surge in hit and run accidents in recent years. The data illustrates a rise in accidents from 2016 to 2019, followed by a decline during the COVID-19 period.
The petitioner highlights two pivotal documents - the annual report for 2022-23 from the General Insurance Council and the response from the Minister of Road Transport and Highways to a parliamentary question. The annual report signifies a mere fraction of claims that were received and resolved under the scheme, while the parliamentary response unveils the count of fatalities and injuries that were duly compensated within the past five years.
The petitioner advocates for heightened consciousness, enhanced execution, and prospective enhancements to the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE DEFENDANT
The respondent recognized the significance of tackling matters pertaining to the execution of remuneration provisions in hit and run motor accidents under the MV Act.
The respondent elucidated the provisions of Section 161 of the MV Act, particularly following the amendment commencing on April 1, 2022. Emphasized was the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022, along with its notable attributes, including predetermined compensation sums.
The respondent acknowledged the grave apprehensions expressed by the legal community regarding the practical execution of the Scheme, presenting data from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways that highlighted the escalating occurrences of hit and run accidents spanning from 2016 to 2022
The respondent acknowledged the General Insurance Council's annual report for the fiscal year 2022-23, which revealed a decrease in the number of claims filed under the Scheme. Additionally, the respondent referenced a Lok Sabha answer provided by the Minister of Road Transport and Highways, emphasizing the distribution of compensation in hit and run incidents.
The respondent recognized the Court's apprehensions regarding the limited implementation of the Scheme and the necessity for public awareness. The respondent alluded to the decision made by the Standing Committee to issue directives for public awareness and sensitization.
The respondent side suggested that the Standing Committee should deliberate on the annual report, offer recommendations, and tackle the issue of low utilization of the Scheme. They acknowledged the necessity of establishing a Monitoring Committee at the district level to ensure efficient implementation.
The respondent deliberated upon the provisions of the Solatium Scheme as well as the proposal to prolong the deadline for claim submission, expressing support for the notion of granting a singular extension to those who qualify under the Solatium Scheme.
The respondent implored the Central Government to contemplate yearly augmentation of compensation sums and render a verdict within a span of eight weeks. Beseeched for a determination regarding the elongation of the deadline for claim submissions within the identical timeframe.
The respondent succinctly outlined the Court's instructions, which entailed a four-month timeframe for the Standing Committee to submit a report on its adherence. The necessity of consistent reporting and diligent oversight of the Scheme's execution was underscored.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
The court tackled apprehensions regarding the inadequate execution of the Compensation Scheme for hit and run accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act. It emphasized the lack of knowledge among the public and proposed enhancements. The court instructed a committee to scrutinize the Scheme, augment public awareness, and oversee implementation. The government was urged to contemplate yearly increments in compensation and prolonging the duration for application. Deadlines for these measures were established by the court, with a subsequent review slated for April 2024. In essence, the court underscored the imperative of heightened awareness, streamlined procedures, and punctual recompense for victims of hit and run incidents.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Supreme Court deliberated upon the concerns pertaining to the inadequate utilization of the Compensation Scheme for hit and run accidents in the case of S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India & Ors. The court underscored the significance of fostering public awareness and issued explicit instructions to the Standing Committee to ensure the efficient execution of the scheme. Furthermore, the Court put forth prospective amendments, encompassing an elongation of the time constraint for asserting compensation and annual augmentations. The government received explicit instructions to contemplate these suggestions within designated timeframes. The Court emphasized the necessity of consistent oversight and scheduled a subsequent hearing for April 2024 to evaluate adherence to the prescribed m
