Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(SC) 781
Dipak Mishra, CJ, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, D.Y. Chandrachud, J
Usha Devi – Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s).9936-9937/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Radhika Gautam
For the Respondents: K.K. Venugopal, R. Balasubramanian, Aarti Sharma, Santosh Kr. Vishawkarma, Abhishek Gola
The State cannot be held liable for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the failure of a vehicle owner to obtain insurance in the absence of specific legislation, although administrative rules can be framed to secure compensation via vehicle disposal.
Headnote:The case involves an appeal against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court regarding the impleadment of the State of Punjab in a claim where the offending vehicle was uninsured. The appellants contended that under S.196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State has an obligation to ensure no uninsured vehicles are driven, and thus the State should be liable to pay compensation and recover it from the owner, citing recommendations in Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Limited for a comprehensive compensation scheme. The primary issue was whether the State can be held liable for compensation in the absence of specific legislation when a vehicle is uninsured. The Court observed that in the absence of legislation, the State cannot be held liable for the non-compliance of a vehicle owner who fails to insure their vehicle, although the owner remains liable to criminal action. The Court reasoned that while certain suggestions for victim solace exist, they require formal rules to be operationalized. The Court directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of all States and Registrar Generals of High Courts to ensure the introduction of rules similar to Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008, if not already done.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER
We have heard Ms.Radhika Gautam, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.K.K.Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, whose assistance was sought vide order dated 21.02.2018.
It is submitted by Ms.Gautam that the High Court has fallen into error by affirming the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala, which has declined to implead the State of Punjab as a party, despite the fact that the deceased - a sole bread earner of the family had died in an accident. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was not insured.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the State has an obligation to see that no uninsured motor vehicle is driven on road by virtue of the provisions of Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, `1988 Act') and, therefore, the State ought to pay the amount and recover it from the owner. She has commended us to the decisions rendered in Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others , (2010) 2 SCC 607 especially paragraphs 33 to 39 and 41. The Court, in the said case, has dealt with many an aspect and, thereafter, to ensure that all accident victims get compensation, has suggested for a comprehensive and unified statute dealing with the accidents so that the families of the helpless victims do not suffer on account of the fact that the vehicle is not insured. We can do no better but to reproduce paragraphs 33 to 39 which read as follows:
33. To ensure that all accident victims get compensation, it is necessary to formulate a more comprehensive scheme for payment of compensation to victims of road accidents, in place of the present system of third party insurance.
34. For example, in South Africa and some other African countries, Road Accident Funds have been created, managed by Road Accident Fund Commissions, thereby eliminating the need for third party insurance. A fuel levy/surcharge is collected on the sale of petrol and diesel and credited to such fund. All accident victims, without exception, are paid compensation from out of the said fund by the Commission. But the feedback from operational statistics relating to such funds is that the scheme, while successful in smaller countries, may encounter difficulties and financial deficits in larger countries like South Africa or developing countries with infrastructural deficiencies.
35. An alternative scheme involves the collection of a one time (life time) third party insurance premium by a Central Insurance Agency in respect of every vehicle sold (in a manner similar to the collection of life time road tax). The fund created by collection of such third party insurance can be augmented/supplemented by an appropriate road accident cess/surcharge on the price of petrol/diesel sold across the country.
36. Such a hybrid model which involves collection of a fixed life time premium in regard to each vehicle plus imposition of a road accident cess may provide a more satisfactory solution in a vast country like India. This will also address a major grievance of insurance companies that their outgoings by way of compensation in motor accident claims is four times the amount received as motor insurance premia. The general insurance companies may however continue with optional insurance to provide cover against damage to the vehicle and injury to the owner.
37. A more realistic and easier alternative is to continue with the present system of third party insurance with two changes:
(i) Define `third party' - to cover any accident victim (that is any third party, other than the owner) and increasing the premia, if necessary.
(ii) Increase the quantum of compensation payable under Section 161 of the Act in case of hit and run motor accidents.
38. India has the dubious distinction of being one of the countries with the highest number of road accidents and the longest response time in securing first aid and medical treatment. There i
