MACT Cannot Hold Road Authorities Like NHAI Liable For Compensation Under S.168 Motor Vehicles Act: Madras High Court - 2025-05-14

Madras High Court Clarifies: MACT Cannot Hold NHAI Liable for Accident Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act

Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cannot fasten liability for compensation on entities like the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Justice R. Vijayakumar , presiding over the appeal, set aside a MACT order that had directed NHAI to bear 35% of the compensation in a fatal road accident case. The entire liability was consequently placed upon the insurer of the vehicle involved.

The appeal, C.M.A(MD)No.629 of 2019, was filed by the Regional Officer of NHAI challenging the award dated April 18, 2018, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Court, Madurai.

Case Background: A Fatal Accident and Suo Motu Impleadment

The case originated from a tragic accident on March 22, 2012, where a two-wheeler rider fatally collided with a cement lorry. The claimants (K.Vasuki and others, family of the deceased) contended that the lorry, owned by M. Saravanan (1st respondent), was negligently parked on the wrong side of the Madurai-Trichy main road at night without any warning signals or lights due to a tyre puncture. They initially sought Rs. 15,00,000/- in compensation, blaming the lorry driver.

The insurer, Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2nd respondent), denied the lorry's involvement and argued the deceased's rash driving caused the accident, claiming the lorry was parked with signals.

Notably, on April 13, 2017, the MACT suo motu impleaded NHAI (appellant herein), reasoning that NHAI failed to provide safe roads and did not remove the lorry, which had allegedly been parked for nearly two days. The Tribunal fixed the total compensation at Rs. 16,98,130/- and ordered the insurer to pay the full amount and then recover 35% from NHAI. This "pay and recovery" directive against NHAI was the subject of the present appeal.

Arguments Presented

Appellant (NHAI): Mr. R. Rajagobal, counsel for NHAI, argued that NHAI is a statutory body responsible for road implementation and maintenance, not an insurer, owner, or driver of a vehicle involved in an accident. He contended that NHAI was not connected to the accident, which occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver and/or the two-wheeler rider. The counsel emphasized that NHAI was not a necessary party and the MACT had erred in suo motu impleading it and fixing liability.

Respondents: Mr. V. Sakthivel, representing the claimants (R1-R4), primarily focused on the initial claim against the lorry. The counsel for the insurance company ( Bharathi Axa ) supported the Tribunal's order, arguing that if NHAI had towed away the lorry, the accident could have been averted, thus justifying the 35% liability apportionment.

Court's Reasoning and Decision: Jurisdiction of MACT Limited by Statute

Justice R. Vijayakumar meticulously examined the scope of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which empowers the MACT.

The Court observed crucial points: * The original claim petition by the claimants did not make any allegations against NHAI. * NHAI was suo motu impleaded by the Tribunal without prior notice. * The Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing liability on a third party (NHAI) not contemplated under the Act.

Citing Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act , the High Court underscored its significance: > "Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the tribunal to pass an award as against the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them as the case may be. Therefore, it is clear that an award could be passed only as against an insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle."

The judgment further elaborated: > "The authority who is empowered with the laying of the road or maintenance of the road cannot be mulcted with the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Tribunal is just a statutory authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and it does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the tortious claim as against any other person who had not been named under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act."

The Court concluded that the MACT had overstepped its statutory bounds.

Final Order and Implications

The Madras High Court allowed NHAI's appeal, setting aside the MACT's award in so far as it pertained to NHAI's liability. The entire liability for the compensation amount of Rs. 16,98,130/- was fixed upon Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company, the insurer of the parked lorry. The other aspects of the MACT's award remained confirmed.

This judgment reaffirms the specific and limited jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. It clarifies that while road authorities like NHAI have responsibilities for road maintenance, they cannot be held liable for compensation within the framework of the Motor Vehicles Act unless they fall into the categories of insurer, owner, or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Any claims against such authorities for negligence in road maintenance would likely need to be pursued through different legal avenues, such as a tortious claim in a civil court.