The Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Police To Promptly File Initial Accident Reports About Motor Vehicle Accidents

As soon as possible after a motor vehicle accident, the police should file a First Accident Report by numerous requirements established by the Supreme Court for the Motor Vehicles Act's claim procedure to get started.

The bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari ordered the state police departments to establish a specialized unit and station-trained personnel in each police station within three months to guarantee proper compliance with the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 and the associated Rules.

Guidelines

• The concerned Station House Officer is required to take action under Section 159 of the MV Amendment Act when made aware of a road accident involving a motor vehicle in a public area.
• The Motor Vehicles Amendment Rules, 2022 mandate that the Investigating Officer submit the First Accident Report to the Claims Tribunal within 48 hours of filing the FIR. Additionally, the Detailed Accident Report and Interim Accident Report must be submitted to the Claims Tribunal before the deadline.
• Together with the police officer, the registering officer must confirm the car's registration, driver's license, vehicle fitness, permit, and other ancillary concerns before sending the report to the Claims Tribunal.
• All additional documentation required by the Rules, including the flow chart, must be written in English or the local language. The Investigating Officer is in charge of notifying the victim(s) and/or legal representative(s), driver(s), the owner(s), insurance providers, and other parties involved in the incident and initiating the necessary procedures to present the witnesses to the Tribunal.
• The Registrar General of the High Courts will frequently issue distribution memos connecting police stations to Claim Tribunals if they haven't already.
• The insurance company's designated officer's proposal for just and reasonable compensation is to be reviewed by the claim tribunals. With the claimant's permission, the settlement should be entered under Section 149(2) of the MV Amendment Act following such satisfaction (s).
• A hearing date should be arranged if the claimant(s) contests it, and they should be allowed to present documents and other supporting evidence.

Section 149 of the MV Amendment Act and the Rule

According to Section 149 of the MV Amendment Act and the Rules, the General Insurance Council and all insurance firms were required to issue the proper directions by the Court. The Nodal Officer designated in Rule 24 and the Designated Officer designated in Rule 23 appointments should be made public as soon as practicable.

The Nodal Officer/Designated Officer of the insurance company must be listed as a respondent in the claim petition as a proper party of the accident site where the police station has recorded an FIR if the claimant(s) seeks recourse under Sections 164 or 166 of the MV Amendment Act.

The Court urged the State Legal Services Authority, the State Judicial Academies, and the Registrar General of the High Courts to inform all interested parties as soon as possible about the provisions of Chapters XI and XII of the MV Amendment Act and the MV 65 Amendment Rules, 2022, and to make sure that the law is upheld.

The Claims Tribunal must have the Local Commissioner record the evidence when the insurance company contests liability. The fees and costs of such a Local Commissioner will be covered by the insurance provider.

Necessary Actions should be taken by the state Authorities

The State Authorities should take the necessary actions to create a shared online portal or platform with any technical agency to coordinate and assist stakeholders in carrying out the requirements of the MV Amendment Act and the Rules.

The final order issued on September 9, 2018, by the Allahabad High Court was being appealed. The Bench was hearing the appeal.

Claim appeal

The MACT approved a claim appeal submitted by a deceased accident victim in 2018 and paid Rs. 31,90,000 + 7% interest as compensation. The deceased's annual income of Rs. 3,09,660 was used to determine the loss of reliance.

The owner of the offending vehicle was deemed liable for compensation when it was found that the vehicle was not being operated by the terms of the permit or the insurance policy.

the offending vehicle was insured, and the insurance company would be responsible for the obligation, according to the appellant, who filed an appeal with the High Court. Additionally, the appellant asserted that they had a special temporary operating permit to drive the bus on the route for which the charge was paid. On the other hand, the High Court supported MACT's conclusions, concluding that the owner of the car had failed to submit the original permission and was unable to collect the same proof to summon a representative from the Transport Department. The parties petitioned the Supreme Court after being unsatisfied.

In this instance, the Bench rejected the appeal and upheld the rulings of the High Court and MACT.