GOHAR MOHAMMED versus UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS on 15 December 2022

[2022] 9 S.C.R. 43

GOHAR MOHAMMED

v.

UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION & OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 9322 of 2022)

DECEMBER 15, 2022

[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Liability of Vehicle Owner –Accident Claim – Determination of Compensation – Victim-deceasedwas 24 years old and working as Managing Director at DRV DrinksPvt. Ltd. – While he was returning from factory to residence, his carwas hit from behind by a bus owned by appellant –The deceasedsustained severe injuries and died on the way to hospital – Claimpetition – MACT awarded a total sum of Rs. 31,90,000/- alongwith7% interest – MACT held that the vehicle was not being operatedas per the terms of permit and was in violation of terms andconditions of insurance policy and, therefore, the owner of theoffending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation – Appellantfiled appeal before the High Court assailing the issue of liability –High Court affirmed the findings of MACT and held that the vehicleowner failed to produce the original permit – Hence, instant appeal– Held:The material available clearly reveals that on the date ofaccident, the appellant did not have a valid and effective permit toply the offending vehicle on the route where accident took place –Even assuming that permit was valid but it is of no help to theappellant since the vehicle was being plied on a route differentthan specified in permit –The concurrent findings of fact do notwarrant any interference.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.146,147,149,159,160,164 and166 – Just Compensation – Reasonable Compensation – Paymentof Compensation – Delay in disposal of claim cases – Payment ofcompensation in a case of death or for damage to the body in amotor accident claim may be based on arithmetical calculation –How far it is just and reasonable, is a matter of satisfaction of theCourt by adopting a uniform approach – In assessing thecompensation uniformity and reasonability are required to be

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Afollowed – Directions issued – Constitution of India – Art. 142 –Motor Vehicles Amendment Act – ss.149(2), 159, 164, 166 – MotorVehicle Amendment Rules, 2022 – r.30.

Dismissing the appeal and passing certain directions, theCourtB

HELD: 1. On the date of accident, the appellant did nothave a valid and effective permit to ply the offending vehicle onthe route where accident took place. Having extensively gonethrough the fact-finding exercise, it is categorically recorded byMACT that the appellant was neither able to produce/prove theCoriginal permit nor was able to prove the information receivedunder RTI Act. Even if RTI information is considered by which itis not clear as to when the disputed permit was issued and bywhom. The alleged permit was issued on 28.07.2012, i.e., onSaturday and no explanation is on record as to why deposit of feewas asked on the next day i.e. Sunday. Moreover, assuming thatDpermit was valid as per letter of Transport Authority, but it doesnot of any help to the appellant since the vehicle was being pliedon a route different than specified in permit. The appellant hasfailed to give any explanation to refute the observations made byMACT to ply the vehicle on Roorkee by-pass to Haridwar viaEMeerut which did not fall within the route of permit issued byTransport Authority. The said findings of fact have been affirmedby the High Court by the impugned order. After going throughthe record, the concurrent findings of fact do not warrant anyinterference since they do not outrageously defy the logic as tosuffer from the vice of irrationality and neither incur the blame ofFbeing perverse. [Paras 8 and 9][50-B-F]

2. This appeal is decided with the following directions:

i) The appeal filed by the owner challenging the issue ofliability is hereby dismissed confirming the order passed by theGHigh Court and MACT.

ii) On receiving the intimation regarding road accident byuse of a motor vehicle at public place, the SHO concerned shalltake steps as per Section 159 of the M.V. Amendment Act.

iii) After registering the FIR, Investigating Officer shallHtake recourse as specified in the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022

and submit the FAR within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal. TheIAR and DAR shall be filed before the Claims Tribunal withinthe time limit subject to compliance of the provisions of the Rules.

iv) The registering officer is duty bound to verify theregistration of the vehicle, driving licence, fitness of vehicle,permit and other ancillary issues and submit the report incoordination to the police officer before the Claims Tribunal.

v) The flow chart and all other documents, as specified inthe Rules, shall either be in vernacular language or in Englishlanguage, as the case may be and shall be supplied as per Rules.The Investigating Officer shall inform the victim(s)/legalrepresentative(s), driver(s), owner(s), insurance companies andother stakeholders with respect to the action taken following theM.V. Amendment Rules and shall take steps to produce thewitnesses on the date, so fixed by the Tribunal.

vi) For the purpose to carry out the direction No. (iii),distribution of police stations attaching them with the ClaimTribunals is required. Therefore, distribution memo attaching thepolice stations to the Claim Tribunals shall be issued by theRegistrar General of the High Courts from time to time, if notalready issued to ensure the compliance of the Rules.

vii) In view of the M.V. Amendment Act and Rules, therole of the Investigating Officer is very important. He is requiredto comply with the provisions of the Rules within the time limit,as prescribed therein. Therefore, for effective implementationof the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereunder,the specified trained police personnel are required to be deputedto deal with the motor accident claim cases. The Chief Secretary/Director General of Police in each and every State/Union Territoryare directed to develop a specialized unit in every police stationor at town level and post the trained police personnel.

viii) On receiving FAR from the police station, the ClaimsTribunal shall register such FAR as Miscellaneous Application.On filing the IAR and DAR by the Investigating Officer inconnection with the said FAR, it shall be attached with the sameMiscellaneous Application. The Claims Tribunal shall passappropriate orders in the said application to carry out the purpose AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2022] 9 S.C.R.

Aof Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules, asdiscussed above.

ix) The Claim Tribunals are directed to satisfy themselveswith the offer of the Designated Officer of the insurance companywith an intent to award just and reasonable compensation. AfterBrecording such satisfaction, the settlement be recorded underSection 149(2) of the M.V. Amendment Act, subject to consentby the claimant(s). If the claimant(s) is not ready to accept thesame, the date be fixed for hearing and affording an opportunityto produce the documents and other evidence seekingenhancement, the petition be decided. In the said event, the saidCenquiry shall be limited only to the extent of the enhancement ofcompensation, shifting onus on the claimant(s).

x) The General Insurance Council and all insurancecompanies are directed to issue appropriate directions to followthe mandate of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and theDamended Rules. The appointment of the Nodal Officer prescribedin Rule 24 and the Designated Officer prescribed in Rule 23 shallbe immediately notified and modified orders be also notified timeto time to all the police stations/stakeholders.

xi) If the claimant(s) files an application under Section 164Eor 166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, on receiving the information,the Miscellaneous Application registered under Section 149 shallbe sent to the Claims Tribunal where the application underSection 164 or 166 is pending immediately by the Claims Tribunal.

xii) In case the claimant(s) or legal representative(s) of theFdeceased have filed separate claim petition(s) in the territorialjurisdiction of different High Courts, in the said situation, thefirst claim petition filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s)shall be maintained by the said Claims Tribunal and thesubsequent claim petition(s) shall stand transferred to the ClaimsGTribunal where the first claim petition was filed and pending. Theclaimant(s) are not required to apply before this Court seekingtransfer of other claim petition(s) though filed in the territorialjurisdiction of different High Courts. The Registrar Generals ofthe High Courts shall take appropriate steps and pass appropriateorder in this regard in furtherance to the directions of this Court.H

xiii) If the claimant(s) takes recourse under Section 164 or166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, as the case may be, he/they aredirected to join Nodal Officer/Designated Officer of the insurancecompany as respondents in the claim petition as proper party ofthe place of accident where the FIR has been registered by thepolice station. Those officers may facilitate the Claims Tribunalspecifying the recourse as taken under Section 149 of the M.V.Amendment Act.

xiv) Registrar General of the High Courts, States LegalServices Authority and State Judicial Academies are requestedto sensitize all stakeholders as early as possible with respect tothe provisions of Chapters XI and XII of the M.V. AmendmentAct and the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022 and to ensure themandate of law.

xv) For compliance of mandate of Rule 30 of the M.V.Amendment Rules, 2022, it is directed that on disputing theliability by the insurance company, the Claims Tribunal shallrecord the evidence through Local Commissioner and the feeand expenses of such Local Commissioner shall be borne by theinsurance company.

(xvi) The State Authorities shall take appropriate steps todevelop a joint web portal/platform to coordinate and facilitatethe stakeholders for the purpose to carry out the provisions ofM.V. Amendment Act and the Rules in coordination with anytechnical agency and be notified to public at large.

Registry of this Court is directed to circulate the copy ofthis judgment to the Registrar General of all High Courts andthe Chief Secretary/Administrator of all the States/UnionTerritories for implementation and to carry out the purpose ofMotor Vehicle Amendment Act and the Rules made thereunder.[Para 62][81-C-H; 82-A-H; 83-A-H; 84-A-B]

Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 2SCC 607 : [2009] 16 SCR 710- followed.

Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors. 2009 SCC OnlineDel 4306; Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors. 2014SCC OnLine Del 7626; M.R. Krishna Murthi v. The New AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AIndia Assurance Co. Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 315-approved.

Case Law Reference

[2009] 16 SCR 710followed Para 13

BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9322of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2018 of the High Courtof Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No.3303/2018.

A. N. Krishnaswamy, Adv. (Amicus Curiae)

C

Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Adv. for the Appellant.

Ms. Garima Prashad, S. P. Jain, Sr. Advs., Nishit Agrawal, HarshMishra, Shadab Khan, Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal,Ms. Pooja Agrawal, Ms. Kirti Datt, Shakti Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar,Siddharth Mehta, Sameer Abhyankar, Vivek Gupta, Advs. for theDRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.E

2. The instant appeal has been filed assailing the final order dated06.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal fromOrder No. 3303 of 2018, vide which the appeal preferred by the appellantagainst the award dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal (for short ‘MACT’) in MACP No. 1107 of 2012 has beenFdismissed. MACT allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensationof Rs. 31,90,000/- (Thirty-one lacs and ninety thousand only) in favourof respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (legal representatives of deceased andhereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) to be paid by respondent No. 5(Insurance Company), with further direction to recover the same fromGappellant (hereinafter referred as owner) who was saddled with liability.

3. Facts briefly put are that, on the date of accident, i.e., 29.07.2012,the deceased was 24 years old and working as Managing Director atDRV Drinks Pvt. Ltd. While he was returning from factory to residence,his car was hit from behind by a bus owned by appellant on the by-passroad near Sanhwali village (U.P.). The deceased sustained severe injuriesH

and died on the way to hospital. FIR was lodged against the driver aswell as owner of the offending vehicle and on 19.01.2012, claim petitionwas filed by claimants before MACT seeking compensation ofRs. 4,19,00,000/- (Four crores and nineteen lacs only) under variousheads.

4. The MACT vide order dated 04.05.2018, allowed the claimpetition and awarded a total sum of Rs. 31,90,000/- alongwith 7% interest.While computing the loss of dependency, the annual income of thedeceased was accepted as Rs. 3,09,660/- after making deduction towardspersonal expenses, multiplier of 18 was applied. It was held that thevehicle was not being operated as per the terms of permit and was inviolation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, therefore the ownerof the offending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation.

5. Appellant filed appeal before the High Court assailing the issueof liability contending, inter alia, no violation of guidelines as such wasthere and submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with insurancecompany indemnifying the liability. Appellant further contended that hehad Special Temporary Authorization (in short ‘permit’) to operate thebus on the route for which the fee was paid. The High Court vide impugnedorder affirmed the findings of MACT and held that the vehicle ownerfailed to produce the original permit and also could not get the sameproved calling the person from the Transport Department, in absence,the Claims Tribunal rightly decided the issue of liability against the owner.

6. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, theappellant contested the instant appeal largely on the ground that failureto produce the original permit cannot lead to an inference against him,especially when such permit has been duly issued by Transport Authorityand confirmed in the reply under Right to Information Act (for short‘RTI Act’). It was further contended that the appellant had valid permitas he deposited the due fee on the next day after the date of issuance ofpermit and hence, the finding of Courts below that the appellant did nothave a valid permit, as such fastened the liability for payment ofcompensation is unjust.

7. Per contra, the State as well as Insurance Company mainlyrelied on the findings recorded by the Courts below to contend that theoffending vehicle was not being plied as per the terms and conditions ofthe permit and also in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Apolicy. It has further been contended that the offending vehicle stoodwithdrawn from State transport services way back in 2009 and was nomore under the control of respondent No. 1, hence, the issue of liabilityhas rightly been decided.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal ofBthe material available on record, it clearly reveals that on the date ofaccident, the appellant did not have a valid and effective permit to plythe offending vehicle on the route where accident took place. Havingextensively gone through the fact-finding exercise, it is categoricallyrecorded by MACT that the appellant was neither able to produce/provethe original permit nor was able to prove the information received underCRTI Act. Even if RTI information is considered by which it is not clearas to when the disputed permit was issued and by whom. The allegedpermit was issued on 28.07.2012, i.e., on Saturday and no explanation ison record as to why deposit of fee was asked on the next day i.e. Sunday.Moreover, assuming that permit was valid as per letter of TransportDAuthority, but it does not of any help to the appellant since the vehiclewas being plied on a route different than specified in permit. The appellanthas failed to give any explanation to refute the observations made byMACT to ply the vehicle on Roorkee by-pass to Haridwar via Meerutwhich did not fall within the route of permit issued by Transport Authority.The said findings of fact have been affirmed by the High Court by theEimpugned order.

9. After going through the record, the concurrent findings of factdo not warrant any interference since they do not outrageously defy thelogic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality and neither incur theblame of being perverse. In view of foregoing discussion, we are of theFconsidered opinion that the arguments raised by appellant are bereft ofany merit, hence this appeal is hereby dismissed.

10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, Ms. Rani Chhabra,Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar and Mr. Vivek Gupta, learnedcounsel for the parties have expressed concern regarding delay in disposalGof the claims cases in trial court or at appellate stage. Emphasis hasbeen made to the ‘Objects and Reasons’ of Motor Vehicles AmendmentAct, 2019 (for short “M.V. Amendment Act”) which is a benevolentlegislation brought with an intent to compensate the family of thedeceased and the persons suffered with injuries including permanentHdisability as expeditiously as possible. It is said the mandate of the provisions of the M.V. Amendment Act, Rules and recourse as specifiedhave not been followed by the stakeholders including Claims Tribunalsworking under subordination of different High Courts.

Statutes

11. It is urged, the legislation to pay compensation in monetaryterms for damages to person or property cannot put the claimant into hisoriginal position. What may be the adequate amount for a wrongfulact is an extreme task. The payment of compensation in a case ofdeath or for damage to the body in a motor accident claim may be basedon arithmetical calculation. How far it is just and reasonable, is a matterof satisfaction of the Court by adopting a uniform approach. Whiledetermining compensation, he/she is required to be compensated as he/she cannot sue again, therefore, the determination of compensation ofthe damages is an extreme task. Therefore in assessing the compensationuniformity and reasonability are required to be followed. In such cases,dispensation of justice may cause social impact and may delay paymentof compensation. Therefore, direction to follow the mandate of law atthe earliest may be issued.

12. To advert the said issue, the assistance of learned SeniorCounsel Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. A.N. VenugopalaGowda and learned counsel Mr. A.N. Krishna Swamy was sought asamici curiae including Ms. Garima Prashad, Additional Advocate Generalfor State of U.P. They have rendered their assistance being officers ofthe Court in true sense and spirit which we acknowledge.

13. Learned counsel for the parties and learned amici curiae havemainly advanced their arguments with respect to M.V. Amendment Actin particular Chapter XI thereof, inter alia, emphasizing the importanceof Sections 146, 149, 159, 160, 161, 164, 166 of the M.V. AmendmentAct. It is urged that the Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment), Rules,2022 (for short “M.V. Amendment Rules”) have also been brought intoforce w.e.f. 1.4.2022 after the M.V. Amendment Act. Prior to theamendment of Act and Rules, as per the directions issued by the DelhiHigh Court and this Court, the standard operating procedure formulatedand circulated to all the High Courts was observed by choice, and theoutcome of its implementation was negligible. But, now by amendment,a statutory regime is prescribed which is not being followed in most ofthe High Courts and by subordinate courts though it is required to befollowed strictly. However, appropriate directions are required toimplement the regime of M.V. Amendment Act and Rules. In alternative, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe hurdle in implementation of the directions by joining the stake-holdersmay be directed as deemed fit. In support of these contentions, recourseas taken by the Delhi High Court as well as this Court in the case of‘Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., 2009 SCC OnlineDel 4306’ (for short “Rajesh Tyagi I”), ‘Jai Prakash Vs. NationalInsurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 607’ (for short “Jai PrakashBI”), ‘Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLineDel 7626’ (for short “Rajesh Tyagi II”), ‘Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs.Jaibir Singh & Ors., 2017 SCC Online Del 4306’ (for short “RajeshTyagi III”) have been relied upon, in addition to refer the provisions ofM.V. amendment Act and Rules.

C

14. After having heard learned counsels, we deem it necessary totrace the history as to how the M.V. Amendment Act and M.V.Amendment Rules have been brought into force to set up new regime todeal with the claim cases since the time of accident.

Evolution of Motor Vehicles Act vis-à-vis 2019DAmendment–

15. In this regard, the distinguished attempt to address the ensuingconcerns was made by the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Tyagi I (supra).In the said case, the Court while dealing with the question of effectiveimplementation of Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008Eand Section 158(6) of M.V. Act (pre-2019 amendment) directed theStation House Officers to submit ‘accident information report’ to MACTwithin 30 days of accident and said report be treated as claim petition byMACT for the purpose of inquiry. Suggestions were invited and later acommittee was constituted to find out a mechanism for time boundsettlement of motor accident claim cases. After deliberations from allFstakeholders, the committee submitted a draft of ‘agreed procedure’and consequently vide order dated 16.12.2009, the Delhi High Courtformulated “Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure” (for short ‘CTAP’)for time bound settlement of motor accident claims within 90 to 120days and directed its implementation only for trial as pilot project for aGperiod of six months from 15.01.2010 to 14.07.2010. The CTAP in additionto Section 158(6), in a nutshell provided as follows –

1. Mandatory intimation of factum of the accident byInvestigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal within 48hours of the accident and if information about insurance H

company is available by that time, then intimation tothe concerned insurance company by email;

2. Appointment of designated officer by insurancecompany for each case immediately upon receipt ofintimation;

3. Collection of relevant evidence by Investigating Officerrelating to accident as well as computation ofcompensation (photographs, proof of age, proof ofincome of deceased etc.);

4. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) to be filed byInvestigating Officer before Claims tribunal within 30days of the accident and a copy thereof to the concernedinsurance company;

5. Copy of DAR alongwith documents to be submitted toLegal Services Authority;

6. Discretion of the Claims Tribunal on application madefor extension of time in cases where the InvestigatingOfficer is unable to complete the investigation within30 days for reasons beyond his control;

7. Production of driver, owner, claimant and eye-witnessesbefore Claims Tribunal alongwith DAR;

8. Furnishing of report by concerned RegistrationAuthority in Form-D of Delhi Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal Rules, 2008 to the Police and Claims Tribunalwithin 15 days from the receipt of request;

9. Examination of DAR by the Claims Tribunal as towhether the DAR is complete in all respects or not;

10. Treatment of DAR filed by Investigating Officer as claimpetition under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act (pre2019 Amendment);

11. Grant of 30 days’ time to Insurance Company by ClaimsTribunal to examine the DAR and to take a decision asto quantum of compensation;

12. Assessment of compensation by designated officeraccompanied with reasoned order which shall constitute A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

a legal offer to the claimants and in case, when suchoffer is acceptable to the claimant, Claims Tribunal topass a consent award with a further 30 days’ time forthe insurance company to deposit the amount; A

13. Time period of not more than 30 days’ to be granted byBClaims Tribunal to claimant to respond to offer madeby insurance company;

14. Conduct of enquiry by Claims Tribunal under Section168 and 169 (pre 2019 Amendment) and passing ofaward within 30 days’ in case of non-acceptance ofCoffer by claimant given by insurance company;

15. Computation of compensation payable to the legalrepresentatives of deceased victims to be done by ClaimsTribunal in accordance with the principles laid downby Hon. Supreme Court in ‘Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, 2009(6) SCALE 129’; D

16. Minimum wage to be considered by Claims Tribunal incases where legal representatives of the deceased donot have documentary evidence as to proof of incomeof deceased; E17.Consideration of principles laid down by Delhi HighCourt in ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Farzana,MAC. APP.13/2007’ in case of death of a child.

16. The High Court also directed the Delhi Police to prepare“Accident Investigation Manual” for implementation of the CTAP. InFthe output, it revolutionized the Motor Accident Compensation Schemedue to which the claimant(s) received the compensation within 120 daysof the accident.

17. Another notable effort was made by this Court in ‘Jai PrakashI’ (supra), wherein this Court identified majorly four issues i.e., firstly,Ggrant of compensation in cases of ‘hit and run where the vehicles remainunidentified which do not have insurance cover having third partyinsurance but carrying persons not covered by the insurance’; secondly,‘widespread practice of using goods vehicles for passenger traffic’;thirdly, ‘procedural delays in adjudication of claims by Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal and following hardships to the victims; and fourthly,H

‘the full amount of compensation not reaching the victims, particularly tothose who are uneducated’. Having regard to the nature of subject matterand considering the suggestions made by amicus, vide order dated17.12.2009 guidelines/directions were issued by this Court to be carriedout in three stages, the same are reproduced in brief as under:–

A

Directions to Police Authorities

B

1. Director General of Police for each State is directed toinstruct all Police Stations in the State to comply withprovisions of Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act (pre2019 Amendment) and submit Accident InformationReport in Form no. 54 accompanied with copies of FirstInformation Report, site sketch/mahazar/photographs,insurance policy, etc. to the jurisdictional MACT andinsurance company within 30 days of registration ofFIR; C

Directions to Claims Tribunals

D

1. Registrar General of each High Court is directed toinstruct all Claims Tribunal in his State to register thereports of accidents received under Section 158(6) ofthe Act and deal with them without waiting for filing ofclaim petition. Further, Registrar General shall ensurethat necessary registers, forms and other support isextended to the Tribunal; E

2. Tribunal shall maintain an Institution Register forrecording Accident Information Reports received fromStation House Officers and register them asmiscellaneous petitions. Tribunal shall further fix a dateof preliminary hearing and after appearance ofclaimants, it shall be converted into claim petition; F

3. Tribunal shall satisfy itself that the Accident InformationReport relates to a real accident and is not a result ofGany collusion or fabrication;

4. In case of non-dispute of liability by insurancecompany, Tribunal shall make an endeavor to determinethe compensation amount by summary enquiry or referthe matter to Lok Adalat for settlement and dispose-off H

the claim petition itself within a time frame not exceedingsix months from the date of registration of claim petition; A

5. Tribunal shall direct insurance company to deposit theadmitted amount or the amount determined, with ClaimsTribunal within 30 days of determination; BSuggestions for Insurance Companies

1. In case of death and non-dispute of liability byinsurance company, endeavor shall be made byinsurance company to pay compensation as perstandard formula to the family (legal representatives)of deceased without waiting for decision of Tribunal orsettlement by Lok Adalat; C

2. In case of injuries and non-dispute of liability byinsurance company, the insurer should offer treatmentat its cost to the injured without waiting for award ofDthe Tribunal;

3. To protect and preserve the compensation amountawarded to families, special schemes in consultationwith Nationalized Banks and Life InsuranceCorporation of India may be considered by theEinsurance companies under which the compensation iskept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period andinterest is paid by Bank on monthly basis;

4. Insurance companies may also consider offering annuityinstead of lump sum compensation and prepare anFannuity scheme with involvement of Life InsuranceCorporation of India.

Suggestions for Legislative/Executive intervention

1. Formulation of more comprehensive scheme ensuringpayment of compensation to all accident victims of roadGaccidents;

2. Introduction of hybrid model which involves collectionof fixed lifetime premium in regard to each vehicle plusimposition of a road accident cess which may providemore satisfactory solution in vast country like India; H

3. Define ‘third party’ to cover any accident victim otherAthan the owner and increase the premia, if necessary;

4. Consider rationalization of Second Schedule to the Actand increase the quantum of compensation payableunder Section 161 of the Act in case of hit and runmotor accidents; B

5. Secure compensation to the victims of road accidentsinvolving uninsured vehicles by directing the owner ofvehicle to offer security or deposit an amount adequateto satisfy the award as a condition precedent for releaseof seized vehicle.

C

18. With the advent of time, the suggestions and guidelines issuedby Courts were adopted and implemented by the authorities. Progressreports were filed by stakeholders at regular intervals for considerationof court. Similarly, in furtherance of the directions given by Delhi HighCourt in Rajesh Tyagi I (supra), the CTAP was implemented in theterritory of Delhi and certain lacunae were identified in its practicalimplementation. Meetings were convened involving all the stakeholdersand further suggestions were presented before Court for incorporationin order to make the guidelines more efficient. The suggestions wereduly considered, and Delhi High Court vide order dated 12.12.2014 in‘Rajesh Tyagi II’ (supra) incorporated the suggestions and appendedthe modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be implemented witheffect from 01.02.2015 for a period of six months subject to reviewafter expiry of three months. Following is the gist of modifications ascarried out and approved by Delhi High Court :- F

1. Intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officerhas to be in Form I of the modified procedure (Clause2);

2. List of documents to be collected by Investigating Officeris given under Clause 3; G

3. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) to be filed byInvestigating Officer shall be in Form II of the modifiedprocedure;

4. Duty of Investigating Officer to seek directions fromClaims Tribunal in Part X of Form II of DAR, in event H

of failure of driver/claimant/owner/ insurance companyto disclose relevant information and produce documentsbefore Investigating Officer within 15 days; A

5. Duty of insurance companies to get DAR verified bytheir surveyor within 20 days of the receipt of copy ofBDAR (Clause 20);

6. Report of the Designated Officer of insurance companyshall be in Form III of modified procedure (Clause 21);

7. Duty of Claims Tribunal to elicit the truth and satisfyitself that the statements made in DAR are true beforeCpassing the award (Clause 24);

8. Duty of the Claims Tribunal to examine the claimantsbefore passing the award to ascertain their financialcondition, proof of residence etc. (Clause 26);

9. Manner of deposit of award amount to be specified byClaims Tribunal (Clause 27); D

10. Claims Tribunal to pass an appropriate order forprotection of award amount (Clause 28);

11. Claims Tribunal shall deal with the compliance ofEprovisions in award (Clause 29);

12. Claims Tribunal shall fix a date for reportingcompliance (Clause 30);

13. Copy of DAR as well as award to be sent to concernedMagistrate (Clause 31); F

14. Record of award passed by Claims Tribunal shall bemaintained in Form V (Clause 33);

19. The aforesaid modified procedure was given a seal ofaffirmation by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2016 passed in JaiGPrakash I (supra), while reviewing the progress made with respect tolegislative changes that were suggested by previous order dated17.12.2009. The modified procedure approved by Delhi High Court wasbrought on record and after perusal, this Court observed as follows:

“We have also perused the procedure, which has been placedbefore us as Annexure R5 with the response which, in our H

view, appears to be a comprehensive one and that we canissue further directions to the Registrar General of the DelhiHigh Court to ensure that procedure is strictly followed insofaras Delhi is concerned and also circulate the said procedureto all the other High Courts and the Registrar General of allthe other High Courts are directed to ensure that the saidprocedure is implemented through the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal in coordination with the Legal Service Authoritiesas well as the Director General of Police of the Statesconcerned.”

Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 06.11.2017, modified itsearlier order dated 13.05.2016 and directed all States to implement the‘Modified CTAP’ while observing as follows –

“The order dated 13.05.2016 will therefore standmodified to the extent that Justice Midha has himself modifiedhis earlier order on 12[th] December, 2014. The Registry willsend a copy of this order as well as the order passed by JusticeMidha on 12[th] December, 2014 to the Registrar General ofeach High Court for necessary information and compliance.List the matter on 23[rd] January, 2018.”

20. In pursuance of the implementation of the guidelines, theproceedings in Rajesh Tyagi I (supra) continued before Delhi HighCourt and vide order dated 07.12.2018 (for short ‘Rajesh Tyagi III’),the Delhi High Court incorporated few more directions in the modifiedCTAP. However, effective implementation of the modified procedureremained a persistent roadblock at all levels, especially in terms of thedirections given by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2016 and 06.11.2017in Jai Prakash I (supra). The said concern again came for considerationbefore this Court in ‘M.R. Krishna Murthi Vs. The New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 315’, wherein, vide orderdated 05.03.2019, this Court categorically noted that there was noeffective implementation of modified CTAP by Claim Tribunals at allIndia level. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court directed NationalLegal Services Authority to take up the matter and monitor the same inco-ordination and co-operation with various High Courts. Further,directions were also given to State Judicial Academies to sensitize thePresiding Officers of Claim Tribunals, senior police officials and insurancecompanies for implementation of modified CTAP. Lastly, this Court also C

D

E

F

G

H

Adirected the Claim Tribunals pan India to implement ‘Motor AccidentClaims Annuity Deposit Scheme’ (for short ‘MACAD Scheme’) asformulated by Delhi High Court in Rajesh Tyagi III (supra). Therelevant paragraphs are being reproduced below for ready reference –

“32. Notwithstanding the aforesaid ADR methods,Badjudicatory process before the MACTs isindispensable. There cannot be a guarantee that 100%cases would be settled through mediation or Lok Adalat.Therefore, there is a dire need for deciding these caseswithout delays and within reasonable period. The DelhiHigh Court has given few judgments providing forCmechanism to speed up the disposal of such cases andto ensure that schemes are settled within a period of90/120 days from the date of accident. In nutshell, thesedirections include that on the occurrence of accident,the police which comes into the picture in the firstDinstance, should complete the investigation and alongwith filing of FIR before the concerned Court ofMetropolitan Magistrate, copies are sent to MACT aswell as Insurance Company also. Insurance Companyis supposed to look into the same to find out as towhether the claim is payable and within 30 days itEshould respond to MACT and once all these documentsare before the MACT in the form of evidence etc., aswell, it would enable the MACT to decide the case within30 days…….

33. Vide order dated 06[th] November, 2017 in Jai PrakashFCase, this Court modified its order dated 13[th] May, 2016and directed all States to implement the Modified ClaimsTribunal Agreed Procedure formulated by Delhi HighthCourt on 12 December, 2014. The copy of the ModifiedClaims Tribunal Agreed Procedure was directed to beGcirculated to the Registrar General of each High Courtnecessary for compliance…….

34. This needs to be followed at all India level. NALSAshould take up and monitor the same as well incoordination and cooperation with various High CourtsHto facilitate the same.

xxxxxxxxx

37. Thus, direction for implementation of the ‘ClaimsTribunal Agreed Procedure’ which is substituted bymodified procedure, as noted above, are already there.However, we find that there is no proper implementationthereof by the Claims Tribunals. We, thus, direct thatthere should be programs (sic) from time to time, in allState Judicial Academies to sensitize the presidingofficers of the Claims Tribunals, senior police officersof the State Police as well as Insurance Company forthe implementation of the said Procedure.

21. Based on the guidelines issued by this Court and Delhi HighCourt, recommendations were made by Group of Transport Ministers(GoM) of States alongwith other stakeholders. The Central Governmentwith an objective to ‘improve road safety, facilitate citizens in theirdealings with transport departments, strengthen rural transport, publictransport, last mile connectivity through automation, computerization andonline services’ introduced ‘The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill,2019’. The aforesaid Bill was passed by both the Houses as ‘The MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988).

22. Vide new Amendment, ‘Chapter X’ of the preceding Actwas omitted. ‘Chapter XI – Insurance of Motor Vehicles againstthird party risks’ and Chapter XII – Claims Tribunals were amendedas per the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2019 which came into forcew.e.f. 1.4.2022. For the purpose of this case, we are mainly concernedwith Chapters XI and XII of the Amendment Act and the Rules toemphasize the necessity of insurance, duties specified to the police officer,registering authority, insurance companies and Clam Tribunals todetermine compensation.

Necessity of Insurance of the vehicle:

23. By virtue of an amendment made in Section 146, insurance ofmotor vehicle is made necessary. The said Section is relevant, thereforereproduced as under:

“146: Necessity for insurance against third party risk. —

(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause orallow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a publicplace, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case maybe, a policy of insurance with the requirements of thisChapter:

A

[Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant tocarry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be apolicy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act,1991 (6 of 1991).]

B

Explanation. —A person driving a motor vehicle merely as apaid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use ofthe vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section,shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-sectionunless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no suchpolicy in force.

C

(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned bythe Central Government or a State Government and used forGovernment purposes unconnected with any commercialenterprise.

D

(3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt fromthe operation of sub-section (1) any vehicle owned by any ofthe following authorities, namely:—

E

(a) the Central Government or a State Government, if thevehicle is used for Government purposes connected withany commercial enterprise; (b)any local authority;

(c) any State transport undertaking:F

Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to anysuch authority unless a fund has been established and ismaintained by that authority in accordance with the rules madein that behalf under this Act for meeting any liability arisingout of the use of any vehicle of that authority which thatauthority or any person in its employment may incur to thirdparties.

G

Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-section,“appropriate Government” means the Central Governmentor a State Government, as the case may be, and—

H

(i) in relation to any corporation or company owned by theCentral Government or any State Government, means theCentral Government or that State Government;

(ii) in relation to any corporation or company owned by theCentral Government and one or more State Governments,means the Central Government;

(iii) in relation to any other State transport undertaking orany local authority, means that Government which has controlover that undertaking or authority.

24. On perusing the M.V. Amendment Act, in particular Section146 of Chapter XI, it is clear that a motor vehicle cannot ply on publicplace nor is allowed to be used at the public place unless insured. Theexemption from insurance has been prescribed to the vehicles owned bythe Central Government, State Government, local authority or any StateTransport Undertaking, if the vehicle is used for the purpose not connectedwith any commercial enterprise. Exemptions specified in sub-section(2) are subject to the orders of the appropriate Government. As per thesaid provisions, the rigor of sub-section (1) would not apply to the vehiclesowned by the authorities specified in sub-section (3) (a) to (c) subject toestablishment of the fund and its maintenance by such authority, as maybe prescribed by appropriate Government. Thus, exemptions permittedto the class and category of the vehicles of the Central Government andState Government are only subject to the order of the appropriateGovernment on establishing and maintaining fund by such authority. Theappropriate Government has also been defined for the purpose of vehiclesof local authorities and State Transport Undertakings.

25. The limits of the liability of the insurance have been prescribedunder Section 147 and in terms of the policy so issued under the provisionsof the M.V. Amendment Act. Section 147 is reproduced thus:

147 : Requirements of policies and limits of liability. —

(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter,a policy of insurance must be a policy which—

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b)insures the person or classes of persons specified in thepolicy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)—

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him inrespect of the death of or bodily[ 27] [injury to any person,including owner of the goods or his authorised representativecarried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a thirdparty caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in apublic place;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger ofa public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use ofthe vehicle in a public place:

Provided that a policy shall not be required—

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of andin the course of his employment, of the employee of a personinsured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustainedby such an employee arising out of and in the course of hisemployment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’sCompensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the deathof, or bodily injury to, any such employee—

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or

(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor ofthe vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or

(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or

(ii) to cover any contractual liability.

Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declaredthat the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage toany property of a third party shall be deemed to have beencaused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in apublic place notwithstanding that the person who is dead orinjured or the property which is damaged was not in a publicplace at the time of the accident, if the act or omission whichled to the accident occurred in a public place.

(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy ofinsurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover anyliability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the followinglimits, namely:—

(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liabilityincurred; (b)in respect of damage to any property of a third party, alimit of rupees six thousand:

Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limitedliability and in force, immediately before the commencementof this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of fourmonths after such commencement or till the date of expiry ofsuch policy whichever is earlier.

(3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of thisChapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favourof the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate ofinsurance in the prescribed form and containing theprescribed particulars of any condition subject to which thepolicy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; anddifferent forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed indifferent cases.

(4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under theprovisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder isnot followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribedtime, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of theperiod of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to theregistering authority in whose records the vehicle to whichthe cover note relates has been registered or to such otherauthority as the State Government may prescribe.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for thetime being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insuranceunder this section shall be liable to indemnify the person orclasses of persons specified in the policy in respect of anyliability which the policy purports to cover in the case of thatperson or those classes of persons.

The aforesaid provision specifies what may be the requirementsof the insurance policies and on having insurance, limits of liability to paycompensation to the claimants.

ACTION BY POLICE OFFICERS AND REGISTERINGAUTHORITIES IN THE EVENT OF OCCURRENCE OF

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

[2022] 9 S.C.R.

AACCIDENT BY USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE AT PUBLICPLACE:

26. While following the procedure, where an accident has takenplace, information regarding accident is required to be furnished to thepolice officer. The relevant provisions with respect to the informationBand duties of the police officer and registering authority have been specifiedunder Sections 159 and 160 of the M.V. Amendment Act, which arereproduced as thus:

“159.Information to be given regarding accident.—Thepolice officer shall, during the investigation, prepareCan accident information report to facilitate thesettlement of claim in such form and manner, withinthree months and containing such particulars andsubmit the same to the Claims Tribunal and such otheragency as may be prescribed.”

D160.A registering authority or the officer-in-charge of apolice station shall, if so required by a person whoalleges that he is entitled to claim compensation inrespect of an accident arising out of the use of amotor vehicle, or if so required by an insurer againstwhom a claim has been made in respect of any motorEvehicle, furnish to that person or to that insurer, asthe case may be, on payment of the prescribed fee,any information at the disposal of the said authorityor the said police officer relating to the identificationmarks and other particulars of the vehicle and theFname and address of the person who was using thevehicle at the time of the accident or was injured byit and the property, if any, damaged in such formand within such time as the Central Government mayprescribe.”

G27. From the above, it is evident that on receiving the intimation ofthe accident and during investigation, the police officer is required toprepare the accident information report (AIR) and shall work as afacilitator in settlement of the claim in a manner as prescribed and furnishthe information to the Claims Tribunal and other stakeholders, as specified.The police officer and registering authority are supposed to dischargeH

their functions to facilitate and furnish the information on payment ofprescribed fees to the person entitled for compensation or to insurer,against whom the claim has been made. They shall also facilitate toidentify the vehicle, name and address of the person using the vehicle atthe time of accident and also regarding a person injured or propertyinvolved, as prescribed.

28. The Central Government in its wisdom with an intent to carryout the purpose of the Act promulgated the Rules, known as MotorVehicle Amendment Rules, 2022.

29. As per the Rules, in the event of a road accident, theinvestigation must be started immediately on receipt of information bythe police officer of the police station concerned. The Investigating Officershall inspect site of accident, take photographs/videos of scene and vehicleinvolved, followed by preparation of site plan drawn to scale as to indicatethe width of road(s) as the case may be and other relevant factorsincluding the persons and vehicles involved in the accident. In a case ofinjury, the Investigating Officer shall take photographs of the injured inthe hospital and shall conduct spot enquiry examining the eyewitnesses/bystanders. The intimation regarding the accident is required to befurnished by Investigating Officer within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunalin the shape of First Accident Report (FAR) in Form-I. It is furtherrequired to be sent to the Nodal Officer of the insurance company onhaving particulars of the insurance policy. The injured/victim(s), legalrepresentative(s), State Legal Services Authority, insurer shall also beprovided the copy of Form-I and the same must be uploaded on thewebsite of the State Police, if available.

30. It would be the duty of the Investigating Officer to inform theinjured/victim(s)/legal representative(s) regarding their rights by supplyingForm-II attaching flow chart within 10 days specifying the scheme toseek remedial measure. It would be the duty of the Investigating Officerto ask the information in Form-III and Form-IV from the driver(s) andthe owner(s) respectively within 30 days. As per the new regime, onreceiving the information, Interim Accident Report (IAR) shall besubmitted by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal within 50days in Form V along with relevant documents. A copy of the said IARshall be furnished to the insurance company of the motor vehicle(s)involved in the road accident, victim(s)/claimant(s), State Legal ServicesAuthority, insurer and General Insurance Council. The Investigating A

B

C

D

E

FG

H

AOfficer or the insurance company shall have right to verify the details ofthe driver and the owner by using the VAHAN App or shall take thehelp of Registering Authority. Investigating Officer is duty bound to takethe relevant details from the victim(s) or the legal representative(s), asthe case may be and furnish the details within 60 days in Form-VI.Form-VI-A is modulated to the minor children, who are in need of careBand protection in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection ofChildren) Act, 2015.

31. On failure to submit the relevant information and documents,as required in Forms III, IV and VI by the driver(s), owner(s),claimant(s) or any information by the insurance company, the InvestigatingCOfficer may ask for direction to the stakeholder(s) before the ClaimsTribunal to furnish such information within 15 days. The registeringauthority is duty bound to verify the licence of driver, fitness and permitof the vehicle(s) involved in the accident and shall supply such informationwithin 15 days to the Investigating Officer. Similarly, for the purpose ofDissuance of medico legal report or the post-mortem report, the hospital isrequired to furnish such information to the Investigating Officer within15 days.

32. The Investigating Officer shall within 90 days compile allrelevant documents and material in the form of Detailed Accident ReportE(DAR) in Form-VII accompanying site plan Form-VIII, mechanicalinspection report Form-IX , verification report Form-X and the reportunder Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) It would be theduty of the registering authority to verify the registration certificate, drivinglicence, fitness and permit in respect of the vehicle(s) involved in theaccident and the same is required to be submitted within 15 days to theFInvestigating Officer to complete the IAR and DAR. The extension oftime limit to file IAR and DAR is only permissible where the InvestigatingOfficer approaches the Claims Tribunal in cases where parties resideoutside the jurisdiction of the Court or where the driver’s licence is issuedoutside the jurisdiction of the Court or where the victim(s) have sufferedGgrievous injuries and are undergoing continuous treatment. Thus, theInvestigating Officer shall furnish FAR within 48 hours, IAR within 50days, complete the investigation within 60 days and file DAR within 90days. Copy of DAR shall be furnished to the victim(s), owner(s)/driver(s)of the vehicle(s), the insurance company involved and the State LegalServices Authority including the Nodal Officer of the insurance companyHand the General Insurance Council.

33. On perusal of the above, it is clear that to carry out the purposeof the provisions of Sections 159 and 160 of the M.V. Amendment Act,the Officer In-charge of the police station and the registering authorityare required to act upon in a manner as prescribed in the Rules withinthe period as specified, thereby on receiving the information of accident,the complete information regarding such accident is to be made availablebefore the Claims Tribunal within the time limit without delay. As perRules, the failure to perform the duties by the police officer may entailsevere consequences as envisaged under the provisions of the StatePolice Act. Thus, legislative intent is clear that on reporting a road accidentthe Investigation Officer must complete all his action within time frameand shall act as facilitator to the victim(s)/claimant(s), insurance companyby furnishing all details in prescribed forms, thereby claimant(s) may getdamages/compensation without delay.

A

B

C

PROCEDURE TO PROCESS THE CLAIM BEFORETRIBUBAL FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION.

D

34. Under the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules framedthereunder, by omitting Chapter-X, the provisions for grant ofcompensation under no-fault liability have been deleted and the specialprocedure has been carved out introducing Section 149. The aforesaidsection is relevant to deal with the issue in context, therefore reproducedas thus:

E

“149. Settlement by insurance company and proceduretherefor. —

(1) The insurance company shall, upon receivinginformation of the accident, either from claimant orthrough accident information report or otherwise,Fdesignate an officer to settle the claims relating to suchaccident.

(2) An officer designated by the insurance company forprocessing the settlement of claim of compensation maymake an offer to the claimant for settlement before theGClaims Tribunal giving such details, within thirty daysand after following such procedure as may be prescribedby the Central Government.

(3) If, the claimant to whom the offer is made under sub-section (2), —

H

A(a)accepts such offer, —

(i) the Claims Tribunal shall make a record of suchsettlement, and such claim shall be deemed to besettled by consent; and

(ii) the payment shall be made by the insuranceBcompany within a maximum period of thirty daysfrom the date of receipt of such record of settlement; (b)rejects such offer, a date of hearing shall be fixed bythe Claims Tribunal to adjudicate such claim on merits.

C35. As per Section 149, on receiving the information of the accidentfrom claimant or from the Accident Information Report (AIR), theinsurance company shall appoint a ‘Designated Officer’ to settle theclaim. The said officer is required to make an offer to the claimant(s),specifying its detail within 30 days by following such procedure, asprescribed by the Central Government. Sub-section (3) of Section 149Dmakes it clear that the offer made by the Designated Officer may eitherbe accepted or rejected by the injured/victim or legal heirs of the deceased.In case, the offer is accepted, the Claims Tribunal shall record thesettlement and treat such a claim as settled by consent. On suchsettlement, the payment has to be made by insurance company withinE30 days. But, in the latter situation of rejection of such offer, the ClaimsTribunals shall fix a date of hearing for adjudication of such claim onmerits.

36. Section 164 of M.V. Amendment Act is relevant to deal withthe claim cases in which negligence is not required to be pleaded andFproved and the same is reproduced thus:

Section 164 - Payment of compensation in case of death orgrievous hurt, etc

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in anyother law for the time being in force or instrument having theGforce of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorisedinsurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievoushurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle,a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of deathor of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt tothe legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

H

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), theclaimant shall not be required to plead or establish that thedeath or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has beenmade was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default ofthe owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or ofany other person.

A

B

(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to anaccident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensationhas been paid under any other law for the time being in force,such amount of compensation shall be reduced from theamount of compensation payable under this section.

37. The aforesaid provision has been brought where theclaimant(s) is not required to plead or establish any wrongful act orneglect or default of the owner(s) of the vehicle(s) or of any other personfor payment of compensation. Therefore, sub-section (1) has been givenoverriding effect limiting the liability to pay compensation to the tune ofRs. 5 lakhs in case of death and Rs. 2.50 lakhs in case of grievous hurtto the legal heirs or to the victim(s), as the case may be. It is furthermade clear the compensation, if payable in any other law, then suchamount is required to be reduced from the amount of compensationpayable under this Section, meaning thereby the legislative intent is clearthat a person, who has suffered with an accident must be compensatedjust and reasonably and the victim(s)/family of the deceased must bepaid for the bodily injury or loss of life caused by an accident by use ofa motor vehicle at a public place.

E

38. In addition to the said process of adjudication, the claimant(s)have the option for taking recourse directly by approaching the ClaimsTribunal by filing an application seeking compensation. The said provisionof Section 166 is relevant and reproduced as thus:

“166. Application for compensation.—

(1) An application for compensation arising out of anaccident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) ofGsection 165 may be made —

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or H

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all orany of the legal representatives of the deceased; or A

(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injuredor all or any of the legal representatives of thedeceased, as the case may be:

B

Provided that where all the legal representatives of thedeceased have not joined in any such application forcompensation, the application shall be made on behalf of orfor the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceasedand the legal representatives who have not so joined, shallbe impleaded as respondents to the application.

C

Provided further that where a person accepts compensationunder section 164 in accordance with the procedure providedunder section 149, his claims petition before the ClaimsTribunal shall lapse.]

D

[(2)Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made,at the option of the claimant, either to the ClaimsTribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which theaccident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within thelocal limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant residesor carries on business or within the local limits of whosejurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in suchform and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

E

[(3)No application for compensation shall be entertainedunless it is made within six months of the occurrence ofthe accident.]

F

[(4)The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidentsforwarded to it under section 159 as an application forcompensation under this Act.]

[(5)Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other lawGfor the time being in force, the right of a person to claimcompensation for injury in an accident shall, upon thedeath of the person injured, survive to his legalrepresentatives, irrespective of whether the cause ofdeath is relatable to or had any nexus with the injuryor not.]

H

39. On perusal, it is clear that in the case of injuries or of death orof damage of property arising out of motor accident at a public place,application for grant of compensation can be submitted directly to theClaims Tribunal by the claimants. In the case of death, all therepresentatives of the deceased or any of them may file an application.If all have not joined as applicant(s), remaining may be joined asrespondents. Under this Section, if the claimant(s) apply for grant ofcompensation, they have option to choose the place or the Claims Tribunal,which may have the jurisdiction either where, the accident occurred orthe claimant(s) resides or carries business or in the local limits of whosejurisdiction the defendant resides. For taking recourse under the aforesaidSection, the application seeking compensation can be entertained if it isfiled within six months from the date of the accident. As per secondproviso of sub-section (1), it is apparent that in case recourse underSection 164 or as per the procedure specified in Section 149 has beentaken and the compensation is accepted by the claimant(s), then recourseunder Section 166 would not be available. But, in case the compensationhas not been accepted under Section 149 or the recourse of Section 164has not been taken, the Claims Tribunal, in whose jurisdiction the accidentoccurred, shall treat the report of Section 159 as claim petition under thisAct and may proceed to decide the same in accordance with law.

40. On perusal of the scheme of the Act, it is clear that as a firstrecourse by not pleading or establishing proof of wrongful act, neglector default of the owner or driver or of the vehicle, the compensation canbe claimed under Section 164, but such compensation is of limited amountto the tune, as specified in case of death or grievous injury. The secondrecourse available to the claimant(s) is to apply by proving wrongful actand neglect of the owner(s) or the driver(s) before the Claims Tribunalby opting the jurisdiction at a place specified under sub-section(2) butsuch claim must be filed within six months from the date of accident andbe adjudicated by the Tribunal. The third recourse has been prescribedby introducing Section 149 of M.V. Amendment Act by which in casethe claimant(s) have failed to take recourse either under Section 164 orSection 166 within the prescribed period of limitation, the report submittedby the investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal, within whosejurisdiction the accident occurred, may be treated as claim applicationunder Section 166(4) and would not debar the claimant(s) to seekcompensation if he/they could not file the application under Section 166(1)of the Act.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A41. As discussed above, Section 149 lays emphasis on thesettlement of the claim in case the liability of the insurance company isnot in dispute subject to complying other necessary formalities, asprescribed. The said provision also emphasize the determination ofcompensation within time frame without delay, thereby the victim mayget compensation for the damages at the earliest. On harmonious readingBand construing the said three Sections, it is therefore clear that the M.V.Amendment Act emphasizes the need to pay compensation to theclaimant(s) or legal representative(s) and decide the claim by takingrecourse whatever is opted by the claimant(s) at the earliest and thefamily should not be left to suffer without payment of damages. In casesCof rash negligent driving where DAR does not bring the charge ofnegligence or the claimant(s) choose to claim compensation under no-fault despite the charge of negligence, the said claim shall be registeredunder Section 164 and it be dealt with accordingly.

42. As per Rules, except in cases under Section 164, for the claimsDeither under Section 149 or 166, the procedure prescribed in the M.V.Amendment Rules is required to be followed by the Claims Tribunal. Asspecified, on receiving the FAR, the Claims Tribunal is required to registersuch FAR as Miscellaneous Application. On filing the IAR and DAR, itshall be attached and be made part of the Miscellaneous Application.The Claims Tribunal is required to examine the FAR, IAR or DAR, asEthe case may be and in the proceedings of the said MiscellaneousApplication, appropriate direction for production of requisite formsprescribed in the Rules through claimant(s), driver(s), owner(s) orextension of time, as specified, may be directed. It should be kept inmind by the Claims Tribunal that the said DAR may be treated as anFapplication under Section 166 as per sub-section (4) thereof. In case theclaimant(s) have taken the recourse under Section 166(1) & (2) andfiled a separate claim petition, the said DAR may be tagged with thesaid claim petition, otherwise the proceedings under Section 149 shallcontinue. The Claims Tribunal awaiting the report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. may satisfy itself with respect to the negligence before passingGan award.

43. On filing FAR, if IAR/DAR is not complete, the time shall befixed by the Claims Tribunal to complete the same and on completion,the date for appearance of the driver(s), owner(s), claimant(s) and eyewitness(s) shall be fixed and they shall be produced by the InvestigatingH

Officer on the date so fixed. It shall also be the duty of the InvestigatingOfficer to intimate the Nodal Officer of the insurance company and alsothe insurance company to secure their presence on such date.

44. After lodging the FIR and on receipt of information by theinsurance company, it would be the duty of the company to appoint aNodal Officer and furnish the intimation to the state police, who shallco-ordinate with all stakeholders. On receiving the information throughNodal Officer, the insurance company shall verify the claim up to thestage of filing the DAR. In case it is found that DAR is not correct, theDesignated Officer of the insurance company shall send a copy of thereport of the surveyor/investigator to the Deputy Commissioner orequivalent officer of the Police Department or otherwise to carry outthe purpose of Section 159. The said officer shall make an offer to theclaimant(s) for settlement before the Claims Tribunal, specifying thedetails of offer and submit the said proposal within 30 days of DAR inForm-XI along with the report of the surveyor/investigator. On submittingsuch form, the claimant(s) may accept the offer of the insurance companyor may reject the same. In case the offer is accepted, the Claims Tribunalshall take such offer on record and by the consent the claim be settledrecording satisfaction that the compensation, as settled, is just andreasonable and pass an award in terms of such settlement. Prior topassing an award, it is open to the Tribunal to examine the claimant(s)for ascertaining their financial condition, owner(s), driver(s) and theinsurer to submit their defence, if any to satisfy itself. In case the offermade by the Designated Officer is not accepted by the claimant(s),rejecting such offer, the claimant(s) are required to file relevant materialasking more amount of compensation for which the date of hearing shallbe fixed by the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim on merit. After fixing thedate and recording the evidence, if required, written submissions may betaken and thereafter Tribunal shall finally adjudicate and decide the claim.After passing the award, copy of the DAR and the award so passed besent to the criminal court and accordingly, the Miscellaneous Applicationregistered by the Tribunal shall be treated as disposed of.

ANALYSIS OF THE M.V. AMENDMENT ACT ANDRULES WITH AN INTENT TO FIND OUT CONVENIENTPROCEDURE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIMCASES WITHOUT ANY DELAY.

D

E

F

G

H

A45. As per the discussion made hereinabove, it is made clear thatthe M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules have been introduced with anadvent to implement the steps taken by the Court issuing directions tocarry out the purpose of the benevolent legislation. As per the M.V.Amendment Act, insurance of the vehicle, until exempted, is madenecessary to carry out the purpose of the Act and the Rules subject toBthe conditions, as specified under Section 147.

A

46. The claimant(s) have been given three options to claimcompensation before the Claims Tribunal. As discussed hereinabove,the option under Section 164 is without pleading the proof of negligencewhile option under Section 166(1) & (2) by the claimant(s) is by provingCthe negligence of the offending vehicle. In addition, Section 149 is addedby which the de novo procedure has been prescribed immediate onregistration of FIR by taking action through the police officer before theClaims Tribunal. It is urged by learned Amicus Curiae that the saidprocedure is not being followed in most part of the country by the ClaimDTribunals though the said Section is a complete code in itself in the matterof distribution of the compensation. Therefore, appropriate directionsare required.

47. As prescribed under M. V. Amendment Act and Rules, thepolice officials and the registering authority are bound to take action inEthe event when an accident takes place and the information is receivedby them. Further, it is seen that as per Rule 3 of the M.V. AmendmentRules, the police officer is required to furnish the details to the victim(s)regarding his/their rights in a road accident and the flow chart of thescheme along with Form-II is required to be furnished to them. Thesaid flow chart and all other documents, as specified in the Rules, mustFbe either in vernacular language or in English and shall be furnished tothe claimant(s) or other affected persons, as per their convenience. Theyare required to take immediate action and submit the report to the ClaimsTribunal informing the victim(s), driver(s), owner(s), insurance companyand other stakeholders with an intent to facilitate them, subject to theGdirections of the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal is also duty boundto take immediate action and to proceed in the matter as required underthe Act and the Rules.

48. In our view, the contentions advanced by the learned counselsdeserve to be allowed. The police officers and registering authority areHduty bound to act as per the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules and are required to submit the FAR, IAR and DAR within the prescribedperiod under the Rules. The registering authority is also bound to takeaction in the matter of verification of the permit, fitness of vehicle, driverlicence and on other ancillary issues. The insurance company is boundto appoint the Nodal Officer as per Rule 24 to facilitate the InvestigatingOfficer in the matter of enquiry and investigation, submitting detailsregarding insurance and co-ordinate with the stakeholders.

49. In our view, the procedure carved out under Section 149 ofthe Amendment Act is de novo on filing the FAR before the ClaimsTribunal and Tribunal is required to register such proceedings asMiscellaneous Application. On filing IAR and DAR by the police officerwithin the time as specified, it shall be made part thereof. If the claimant(s)has not opted for taking recourse under Section 166(1) within the timelimit of six months, such Miscellaneous Application may be treated as anapplication under Section 166(4) of M.V. Amendment Act and beadjudicated in accordance with law. Therefore, the procedure asprescribed under Section 149 is in addition to the proceedings of Sections164, 166 of M.V. Amendment Act and such mandate of law is requiredto be followed in true sense and spirit.

50. Learned Amicus Curiae contends that in a situation where theclaimant(s) opts to file a claim petition under Section 166 other than aplace where the accident has taken place taking recourse of Section166(2) of the M.V. Amendment Act, the proceedings initiated underSection 149 is required to be closed and tagged with those proceedings.It is also urged that possibility of filing application by opting the ClaimsTribunals at different places within territorial jurisdiction of different HighCourt by other claimant(s) cannot be ruled out. It is further contendedthat in case the claim petitions have been filed at different places bydifferent claimant(s) within the territorial jurisdiction of different HighCourts, appropriate directions to transfer those cases at one place inexercise of the power under Section 142 of the Constitution of Indianeeds to be issued, thereby the delay may be curbed in proceeding theclaim case.

51. In our view, the argument as advanced is having force,therefore, we direct that on initiation of the proceedings under Section149 registering a Miscellaneous Application by the Claims Tribunal, inwhose jurisdiction the accident occurred would continue until theproceedings under Section 166 has been filed by the claimant(s)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aseparately. In the event of filing a separate application and on receivingthe information in this regard either from the claimant(s), or investigatingofficer or insurance company, the proceedings under Section 149 shallbe deemed as closed and be tagged with the proceedings of Sections164/166 filed by the claimant(s). In case the claimant(s)/legalrepresentative(s) have filed different applications under Section 166Bbefore different Claim Tribunals at different places outside the territorialjurisdiction of one High Court, in the said contingency the Claims Tribunal,where the first claim petition is filed shall have jurisdiction to adjudicateand decide the same and other claim petition(s) filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s) in the territorial limits of other High Courts shallCstand transferred to the Claims Tribunal where the first claim petitionwas filed and the proceedings under Section 149 shall be tagged withthe said file. In order to curb the delay on account of pendency of claimpetition(s) before different Claim Tribunals within the territorial jurisdictionof different High Courts, such direction is necessary. Therefore, wedeem it appropriate to exercise our power under Article 142 of theDConstitution of India. It is directed that Registrar General of the HighCourts shall issue appropriate orders for transferring the subsequentproceedings and records to the Claims Tribunal where the first claimpetition filed by the claimant(s) is pending. It is made clear here that theparties are not required to file any transfer petition before this CourtEseeking order of transfer in such individual cases pending in the jurisdictionof different High Courts

52. Learned Amicus Curiae has further pointed out that in someHigh Courts, distribution memos attaching the Claims Tribunal to thepolice stations have not been issued, however taking recourse underFSection 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act is not possible within theprescribed period of time, therefore directions may be issued to preparethe distribution memos by the High Courts with respect to police stationsand Claims Tribunals in order to implement the recourse of Section 149of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules may be issued and the samebe notified in public domain for the convenience of public.G

53. In this regard, it would suffice to observe that in the HighCourts, where the distribution of police stations and specified ClaimsTribunals is not already in force, steps shall be taken by the RegistrarGenerals to prepare distribution memos and notify the same time to time,thereby the proceedings under Section 149 may continue effectively inH

such Claim Tribunals without any delay. The Tribunals, as notified, shalltake recourse as discussed and on appointment of the Designated Officeras per Rule 23 of the Rules, the settlement of claim may be processedby the insurance company. The said proceedings would continue until itis tagged with the claim petition, if any, filed under Section 166 of theM.V. Amendment Act. It is also made clear that if the claimant(s) havenot taken any recourse under Section 166, then the miscellaneousapplication be treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of the M.V.Amendment Act and the Claims Tribunal is duty bound to decide suchclaim by following the procedure in accordance with law.

54. It is contended by learned Amicus Curiae that in case theliability of the insurance company is not disputed in terms of the policyconditions commensurate to Section 147 of the Act, the offer so madeby the Designated Officer ought to be reasonable specifying the detailedreasons to make such offer within the time as prescribed. On the saidoffer, the Claims Tribunal shall seek consent of the claimant(s), whetherthey agree for the same. In case, the claimant(s) does not agree withthe said offer, the enquiry under Section 149(3) should be limited to theextent of enhancement of compensation shifting onus to claim suchenhancement on claimant(s) which is required to be discharged by theclaimant(s).

55. We find force in the said contention. Therefore, we direct thatthe Designated Officer, while making offer, shall assign detailed reasonsto show that the amount which is offered is just and reasonable. In case,the said offer is not accepted by the claimant(s), the onus would shift onthe claimant(s) to seek for enhancement of the amount of compensationand the said enquiry under Section 149(3) would be limited forenhancement only.

56. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that in case theclaimant(s) wishes to opt to take recourse under Section 166 of theM.V. Amendment Act opting jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal as specifiedunder Section 166(2), in such cases, directions may be issued to join theNodal Officer/Designated Officer of the insurance companies of a placewhere the accident took place. The said recourse is necessary to furthercurb the delay in tagging the proceedings of Section 149. ThoseDesignated Officer/Nodal Officer may be in a position to clarify regardingthe details of the proceedings already taken under Section 149 of theM.V. Amendment Act before the Claims Tribunal concerned.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A57. We find force in the said contention. Therefore, we direct thatif the claimant(s) wants to exercise the option under Section 166(2) ofthe M.V. Amendment Act, he/they are free to take such recourse byjoining the Designated Officer/Nodal Officer of the insurance companyof the place where the accident occurred as respondent in the claimpetition.B

A

58. It is further urged by learned Amicus Curiae that the ClaimsTribunal, police officials and the insurance companies must be sensitizedby the State Judicial Academies working under the control of the HighCourts with respect to the provisions of the M.V. Amendment Act andthe Rules, thereby the said procedure must be adopted in-coordinationCwith the police officials, insurance companies and other stakeholders.We are in agreement to the said submission and direct the State JudicialAcademies to take recourse to sensitize the stakeholders including thesaid subject in their annual training calendar as early as possible.

59. Learned Amicus Curiae has shown the apprehension that theDprocedure, as specified under Sections 149,159 and 160 of the M.V.Amendment Act and Rules, is for seeking compensation de novo. Asper the said procedure, the greater liability has been fastened on thepolice officers, registering authority, Nodal Officer and Designated Officerof the insurance companies. In such a situation, at least officers of theEpolice department must be well equipped and conversant with theprovisions and rules and efficient to discharge the function as specifiedin the Act and the Rules. Ordinarily the police officers may be efficientin investigation of the complicated criminal cases but the procedure asprescribed in the M.V. Amendment Act and Rules is different than theprocedure of investigation in criminal cases. In fact it fasten duty on theFpolice officer as a facilitator, in addition to the investigator and submitthe report in prescribed forms. Therefore, the trained and equipped policeofficers may be posted in the police stations constituting a special unit tomake investigation for motor accident claim cases. After going throughthe procedure, as discussed in detail above, we find some substance inGthe argument. In our view, the head of the Home Department of theState and the Director General of Police in all States/Union Territoriesshall ensure the compliance of the Rules by constituting a special unit inthe police stations or at least at town level to investigate and facilitatethe motor accident claim cases. The said action must be ensured withina period of three months from today.H

60. The learned amicus curiae further submitted that in recordingthe evidence by Claims Tribunal, appointment of local commissioner asper Rule 30 of the MV Amendment Rules 2022 may also be directed,otherwise looking at the pendency of claim cases before the Tribunals, itwill cause delay in disposal.

61. In our view the said contention is as per Rule 30. Where theinsurance company disputes the liability, the Claims Tribunal is duty boundto record the evidence through the local commissioner and the fee/expenses of such local commissioner shall be borne by the insurancecompany.

62. Accordingly, this appeal is decided with the following directions:

i) The appeal filed by the owner challenging the issue of liability ishereby dismissed confirming the order passed by the High Courtand MACT.

ii) On receiving the intimation regarding road accident by use of amotor vehicle at public place, the SHO concerned shall take stepsas per Section 159 of the M.V. Amendment Act.

iii) After registering the FIR, Investigating Officer shall takerecourse as specified in the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022 andsubmit the FAR within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal. The IARand DAR shall be filed before the Claims Tribunal within the timelimit subject to compliance of the provisions of the Rules.

iv) The registering officer is duty bound to verify the registrationof the vehicle, driving licence, fitness of vehicle, permit and otherancillary issues and submit the report in coordination to the policeofficer before the Claims Tribunal.

v) The flow chart and all other documents, as specified in theRules, shall either be in vernacular language or in English language,as the case may be and shall be supplied as per Rules. TheInvestigating Officer shall inform the victim(s)/legalrepresentative(s), driver(s), owner(s), insurance companies andother stakeholders with respect to the action taken following theM.V. Amendment Rules and shall take steps to produce thewitnesses on the date, so fixed by the Tribunal.

vi) For the purpose to carry out the direction No. (iii), distributionof police stations attaching them with the Claim Tribunals is A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

required. Therefore, distribution memo attaching the police stationsto the Claim Tribunals shall be issued by the Registrar General ofthe High Courts from time to time, if not already issued to ensurethe compliance of the Rules.

A

vii) In view of the M.V. Amendment Act and Rules, as discussedhereinabove, the role of the Investigating Officer is very important.He is required to comply with the provisions of the Rules withinthe time limit, as prescribed therein. Therefore, for effectiveimplementation of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules framedthereunder, the specified trained police personnel are required tobe deputed to deal with the motor accident claim cases. Therefore,we direct that the Chief Secretary/Director General of Police ineach and every State/Union Territory shall develop a specializedunit in every police station or at town level and post the trainedpolice personnel to ensure the compliance of the provisions of theM.V. Amendment Act and the Rules, within a period of threemonths from the date of this order.

B

C

D

viii) On receiving FAR from the police station, the Claims Tribunalshall register such FAR as Miscellaneous Application. On filingthe IAR and DAR by the Investigating Officer in connectionwith the said FAR, it shall be attached with the same MiscellaneousApplication. The Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders inthe said application to carry out the purpose of Section 149 of theM.V. Amendment Act and the Rules, as discussed above.

E

ix) The Claim Tribunals are directed to satisfy themselves withthe offer of the Designated Officer of the insurance companyFwith an intent to award just and reasonable compensation. Afterrecording such satisfaction, the settlement be recorded underSection 149(2) of the M.V. Amendment Act, subject to consentby the claimant(s). If the claimant(s) is not ready to accept thesame, the date be fixed for hearing and affording an opportunityto produce the documents and other evidence seekingGenhancement, the petition be decided. In the said event, the saidenquiry shall be limited only to the extent of the enhancement ofcompensation, shifting onus on the claimant(s).

x) The General Insurance Council and all insurance companiesare directed to issue appropriate directions to follow the mandateof Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the amended H

Rules. The appointment of the Nodal Officer prescribed in Rule24 and the Designated Officer prescribed in Rule 23 shall beimmediately notified and modified orders be also notified time totime to all the police stations/stakeholders.

xi) If the claimant(s) files an application under Section 164 or 166of the M.V. Amendment Act, on receiving the information, theMiscellaneous Application registered under Section 149 shall besent to the Claims Tribunal where the application under Section164 or 166 is pending immediately by the Claims Tribunal.

xii) In case the claimant(s) or legal representative(s) of thedeceased have filed separate claim petition(s) in the territorialjurisdiction of different High Courts, in the said situation, the firstclaim petition filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s) shallbe maintained by the said Claims Tribunal and the subsequentclaim petition(s) shall stand transferred to the Claims Tribunalwhere the first claim petition was filed and pending. It is madeclear here that the claimant(s) are not required to apply beforethis Court seeking transfer of other claim petition(s) though filedin the territorial jurisdiction of different High Courts. The RegistrarGenerals of the High Courts shall take appropriate steps and passappropriate order in this regard in furtherance to the directions ofthis Court.

xiii) If the claimant(s) takes recourse under Section 164 or 166 ofthe M.V. Amendment Act, as the case may be, he/they are directedto join Nodal Officer/Designated Officer of the insurancecompany as respondents in the claim petition as proper party ofthe place of accident where the FIR has been registered by thepolice station. Those officers may facilitate the Claims Tribunalspecifying the recourse as taken under Section 149 of the M.V.Amendment Act.

xiv) Registrar General of the High Courts, States Legal ServicesAuthority and State Judicial Academies are requested to sensitizeall stakeholders as early as possible with respect to the provisionsof Chapters XI and XII of the M.V. Amendment Act and theM.V. Amendment Rules, 2022 and to ensure the mandate of law.

xv) For compliance of mandate of Rule 30 of the M.V. AmendmentRules, 2022, it is directed that on disputing the liability by the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ainsurance company, the Claims Tribunal shall record the evidencethrough Local Commissioner and the fee and expenses of suchLocal Commissioner shall be borne by the insurance company.

xvi) The State Authorities shall take appropriate steps to developa joint web portal/platform to coordinate and facilitate theBstakeholders for the purpose to carry out the provisions of M.V.Amendment Act and the Rules in coordination with any technicalagency and be notified to public at large.

Registry of this Court is directed to circulate the copy of thisjudgment to the Registrar General of all High Courts and the Chief CSecretary/Administrator of all the States/Union Territories forimplementation and to carry out the purpose of Motor Vehicle AmendmentAct and the Rules made thereunder.

D

Devika Gujral

(Assisted by : Shubhanshu Das, LCRA)

Appeal dismissed and directions issued.

E

F

G

H