FUNDAMENTAL DUTY OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION

-

FUNDAMENTAL DUTY OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION

-TANISHA SHARMA 

BACKGROUND:


The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is an act by Parliament of India which regulates the facets of road transport vehicles. The Act came into force from 1 July 1989. It replaced the Motor Vehicle Act of 1939. Some features of this act are-

  • It provides expeditious and effective disposal of cases relating to motor vehicle accidents.
  • It provides speedier and cheaper remedies to the victims. It also ensures the welfare of the public who meets with road accidents.
  • Suit for damages must be filed in the civil court, after the payment of ad valorem court fee.
  • According to the no-fault principle, provisions as to other rights to claim compensation for permanent disablement or death.
  • It also includes the ‘third party’ concept which means those people who’ve been harmed by the rash and reckless driving of the drivers.

 Motor Vehicles Act created a new tribunal named Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which deals with the cases that involve loss of life and property, or in case of injury. The Tribunal must follow the procedure for adjudication of claims being provided, the sections do not deal with the substantive law regarding determination of liability. The High Courts of various states supervise these tribunals. Section 169 empowers the tribunal to contrive its own procedure.

CURRENT ISSUE:


The incident occurred on 18 October 2006 when the claimants were traveling to Latur in a tempo carrying soybean bags with them. The tempo turned upside down and the claimant endured severe injuries. The said tempo was ensured with Oriental Insurance at the time of the accident. Oriental Insurance contended before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the claimants were not traveling in the tempo which is registered as a goods carriage only and hence the risk was not covered in their insurance policy. Into the bargain, the Oriental Insurance company argued that the driver (who was the owner of a tempo) was at fault for rash and negligent driving. The accident occurred when they reached Murud Village and while giving side to a rickshaw the tempo lost control and turned upside down. The claimants sustained a fractured leg. They claimed compensation of Rs 1,00,000 and 2,00,000 with interest.


 The case was brought to trial in the Bombay High Court. The insurance company was represented by Advocate US Malse while Advocate MY Patil appeared on behalf of the claimants. According to Malse, the tribunal failed to examine the disability certificate provided by the claimants. The tribunal passed the judgment on account of the ‘pay and recover’ principle and the court noted that the outset can be that despite the fact that both the claimants produced the disability certificate on record, which was to be examined by the medical officer, was not examined. For the negligence or the rash driving to be held on the part of claimants, no evidence was provided by the insurance company. Setting aside MACT's judgment, Court held-


"Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence properly, so also, a very cryptic Judgment has been passed. It can be still observed, that as regards negligence is concerned, without appreciating proper evidence, directly conclusion has been drawn and then the fact that the claimants had come with a case that they were traveling as owners of the goods from a goods vehicle, has also not been considered and appreciated taking into consideration the said cryptic Judgment deserves remand, in view of the fact that it is the fundamental duty of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to arrive at a proper conclusion and award just compensation.

CONCLUSION:


Laws are generally made for well being and benefit of people. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is made proscribe the sufferings dealt by the victims of road accidents and that justice could be provided in an effective and affordable manner. It is important to implement such laws that are in favor of poor victims. Therefore, not only the government should work to implement the laws but the public as well. The amount of compensation to be paid by the offender must be based on fairness, equity, and reasonableness.

Comments

Post a Comment