If all the forensic surgeries suggested by the Supreme Court over the years are conducted on the Motor Vehicles Act, the amputations, sutures and implants would make the 1988 law unrecognisable. Law makers and draftsmen are not ready even for an airbrush. So the recommendations pile up.
The value of human life lost in a road accident cannot be measured as in a logarithm table. The court conceded this point in a recent judgment that “the determination of compensation is not an exact science and the exercise involves an assessment based on estimation and conjectures here and there as many imponderable factors and unpredictable contingencies have to be taken into consideration.” (Leela Gupta vs State of UP).
The Motor Vehicles Act has a table trying to make the calculation of compensation easier. But it has been ridiculed by the Supreme Court for wrong arithmetic as the figures do not add up (UP State Road Transport vs Trilok Chandra). The matter has been referred to a larger bench, which is yet to be formed.
In last year’s judgment in the case, Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, the Supreme Court set down its own chart to compute damages according to the age of the victim, income and loss to dependents. In addition, several principles were drawn from Indian and English judgments to help judges in the motor accidents compensation tribunals.
With all the original sins in the Act and so many attempts by the apex court to plug loopholes and interpret phrases, the judges in the tribunals must be a confused lot. The more confounded must be the victims and their dependents in this slough of despond. The Leela Gupta case took 15 years to snake its way to the Supreme Court. Many dependents leave it halfway due to expenses and delays.
The plight of the dependents was described by the court itself in a recent judgment: “Motor accident victims are doubly unfortunate — first in getting involved in an accident, and second, in not getting any compensation.” (Jai Prakash vs National Insurance Co). Those who do not receive compensation include victims who are involved in hit-and-run mishaps when the vehicles remain unidentified, vehicles without insurance cover and those vehicles that carry unauthorised passengers without third party insurance. According to the Supreme Court, around 20 per cent of those who do not get compensation belong to this category.
The second serious problem is the widespread use of goods vehicles for passenger traffic. It is a harsh reality, raising legal and moral questions.
The third problem identified by the court is the procedural delays in adjudication of the claims before the tribunals.
The fourth problem is that the full compensation amount does not reach the victims and their families, especially when they are poor and illiterate. “Ambulance chasers” take away most of it in contingency agreements.
The court has recommended several measures addressed to the police authorities, the claims tribunals and insurance companies so that all accident victims get compensation. It also recommended a comprehensive law dealing with accidents, in place of one dealing only with road accidents. But as usual, follow-up steps by the court and the authorities have been poor.
Meanwhile, several questions that have been referred by smaller benches to larger benches are waiting for a hearing in the Supreme Court. For instance, can the tribunal ask the insurer to pay the dependents even when it is not liable and recover the amount from the owner? The courts have given different answers.
Last year, the court decided to take up some 20 issues relating to accident compensation. The insurance companies have also raised their problems in a series of petitions before the court. The court heard some of them at special sittings, but after some time, the effort seems to have been suspended.
Some of the questions are: The liability of insurance companies when the driver of the vehicle that was involved in an accident had no valid licence at the time of the mishap; passengers injured while travelling in a goods vehicle; claims of guests in a passenger car; overloading of vehicles and bouncing of cheques paid as compensation.
Another batch of appeals moved by insurance companies seeks a definitive judgment on Sections 146, 147, 149 and 166. These provisions deal with overloading and negligent driving. In these days of terrorism and armed robbery, a legal dilemma has arisen about the murder of the driver and abandonment of the vehicle. Some courts have held that it would be an “accident” and, therefore, the insurer would be liable. Some others do not think so. Above all is the question of inflation, which has not been recognised by the Act and rarely offset by the judges, so damages tend to be low.
