Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1324
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 534 of 2020
Decided On : 27-01-2022
Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, AC, Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth, Advocate, Ms. Mamata Meghwal, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Agrawal, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Ld. ASG, Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Advocate, Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Manish, Advocate, Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Advocate, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Advocate, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Advocate, Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Advocate, Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. K. V. Girish Chowdary, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Advocate, Mr. Sourav Roy, Advocate/ DAG (Chhattisgarh), Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Prabudh Singh, Advocate, Ms. Devika Khanna, Advocate, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Advocate, M/s Vmz Chambers, Advocate, Mr. Ravindra A. Lokhande, Advocate, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Advocate, Ms. Ambika Atrey, Advocate, Dr. Vidyottma Jha, Advocate, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocate, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate, Ms. Eliza Bar, Advocate, Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Advocate, Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Advocate, Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Advocate, Mr. Raj Kamal, Advocate, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate, Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Advocate, Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Mukul Singh, DAG, Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocate, Mr. Prakhar Srivastav, Advocate, Ms. Sneh Bairwa, Advocate, Mr. Aakash Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocate, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Advocate, Mr. Karun Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advocate, Ms. Tarini K. Nayak, Advocate, Ms. P.S. Negi, Advocate, Mr. Daniel Lyngdoh, Advocate, Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Advocate, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Advocate, Ms. Manya Hasija, Advocate, Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Advocate, Mr. Akash Singh, Advocate, Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Advocate, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Advocate, Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, Advocate, Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Advocate, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Advocate, Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Advocate, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate, Ms. Sweena Nair, Advocate, Mr. P. Mohith Rao, Advocate, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate, Mr. Ishaan Borthakur, Advocate, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate, Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Advocate, Mr. Ishaan Borthakur, Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Misra, Advocate, Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate, Mr. Yashsvi Virendra, Advocate, Mr. Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Advocate, Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Advocate, Ms. G. Indira, Advocate, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate, Mr. Aravindh S., Advocate, Ms. C. Rubavathi, Advocate, For the Respondent; Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advocate, Ms. Vanya Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Avnish Dave, Advocate, Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ashish Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Talukdar, Advocate, Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Harsha Peechara, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Talukdar, Advocate, Ms. Kritika Narayan, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Advocate, Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate, Mr. Aditeya Bali, Advocate, Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocate, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Advocate, Mr. Alim Anvar, Advocate, for the Impleader.
Efficient coordination between stakeholders, uniform TDS rates, and challenges in maintaining savings bank accounts for disbursement of compensation are crucial aspects in motor accident claims compensation cases.
Headnote:
TIME SCHEDULES - Motor Accident Claims Compensation - Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 194-A - Coordination between stakeholders, TDS, and Fund Pool for Non-Insured State Vehicles - Act Section List: Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 194-A - Summary: The court emphasized the importance of time schedules in streamlining the system for motor accident claims compensation. It addressed issues related to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and coordination between local police stations and MACT courts. The court also discussed the creation of a fund for non-insured state vehicles and the challenges in maintaining savings bank accounts for disbursement of compensation. Key legal provisions such as Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were interpreted to ensure efficient disbursement of compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The court emphasized the importance of time schedules in streamlining the system for motor accident claims compensation and addressed various aspects related to TDS, coordination between stakeholders, and the creation of a fund for non-insured state vehicles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that time schedules were crucial for efficient disbursement of compensation and addressed issues related to TDS, coordination between stakeholders, and the creation of a fund for non-insured state vehicles. It also highlighted challenges in maintaining savings bank accounts for disbursement of compensation.
Issues: The issues addressed by the court included the importance of time schedules, uniform TDS rates, coordination between local police stations and MACT courts, and the creation of a fund for non-insured state vehicles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need for efficient coordination between stakeholders, uniform TDS rates, and the challenges in maintaining savings bank accounts for disbursement of compensation. The interpretation of key legal provisions such as Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 played a significant role in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court emphasized the importance of time schedules, directed uniform TDS rates, and addressed the coordination between local police stations and MACT courts. It also provided directions for the creation of a fund for non-insured state vehicles and highlighted challenges in maintaining savings bank accounts for disbursement of compensation.
ORDER
1. We must begin by reminding parties once again of the importance of time schedules to be kept. We are spending valuable judicial time to streamline the system only because a very large part of pendency of litigation is in the field of motor accidents claims compensation and the beneficiaries do not get the amounts in time. What is really the administrative tuning required between different stakeholders, has come in the lap of the Court and the Court is only endeavouring to coordinate and give a nudge to the stakeholders to ensure that system works in an efficient manner. We say so as once again the report filed by the learned ASG is not on record and one of the aspects pointed out by him is that everything comes a day before. We cannot, but castigate all concerned persons for believing they have a walk in time anytime they want to give inputs. we expect the inputs to be given in time stipulated by the learned ASG and not a day before the Court hearing so that we have the benefit of the report. Our patience on this issue is running thin and thus we make it clear that henceforth if time schedules are not followed, they will be visited with exemplary costs which will not be small amounts. We in fact call upon learned ASG on the next date to point out with every report henceforth as to who are the parties who have not responded in time and we will accordingly impose exemplary costs on them. So all stakeholders please take notice of this fact.
2. Now coming to some of the aspects pointed out to us, which we propose to address:
1) TDS
3. Learned ASG has pointed out that insofar as our direction (v) of our order dated 16.11 2021 we had dealt with the aspect of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) in Motor Accident Claims at two different rates from 10% to 20%. Learned ASG points out that uniform system is being brought in place whereby TDS will be uniformly 10% for all categories.
4. Mr. Vijayaraghavan, learned Amicus Curiae assisting us points out that there are large amounts of TDS deducted at source where the claimants are not fully aware how to obtain that amount. This may be arising on account of the fact that a number of such claimants may not even be assessees as they come from different economic strata of the society. Mr. Vijayaraghavan, learned Amicus Curiae points out that amounts in this behalf may be running into hundreds of crores. We thus call upon learned ASG to look into this aspect and work out a system whereby this problem can be dealt with.
5. A suggestion made by learned Amicus Curiae is that where TDS is applied as per Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the insurance companies/transport corporations/others should file the statutory Form 16-A immediately upon filing the returns of the TDS to the Income Tax Department and the MACTs. should endeavour to hand over to the claimants/counsel on proper acknowledgment, the forms to facilitate speedier disbursement.
2) COORDINATION BETWEEN LOCAL POLICE STATIONS AND MACT COURTS
6. Learned ASG has then taken us to our direction (vi) of the same order to submit that there has been considerable progress with the Registrars General and the DGPs. brought in and most of the nodal officers have been appointed. It is, however, stated to be still a work in progress and we expect that the matter should stand finally settled with all aspects of our direction (vi) being worked out. We direct that further two months' time is more than sufficient to work this out.
3) MOBILE APP
7. Our direction(vii) dealt with the aspect of a common Mobile App. We had expressed our grave reservation and the loss of time on account of view expressed before us that common mobile App was a work in progress (our orders dated 16.03.2021 and 03.08.2021). However, on the last date, we were told that the GIC was willing to develop a mobile App. i.e. things were not worked out before as stated and we had granted a period of two months. Learned ASG rightly points out that there were presentations made including to
