# GOHAR MOHAMMED v. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2022] 9 S.C.R. 43
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-12-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9322 of 2022
- **Bench:** S. Abdul Nazeer, J. K. Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gohar-mohammed-v-uttar-pradesh-state-road-transport-corporation-others-36608
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Liability of Vehicle Owner -
Accident Claim - Determination of Compensation - Victim-deceased
was 24 years old and working as Managing Director at DRV Drinks
Pvt. Ltd. - While he was returning from factory to residence, his car
was hit from behind by a bus owned by appellant -The deceased
sustained severe injuries and died on the way to hospital - Claim
petition - MACT awarded a total sum of Rs. 31,90,000/- alongwith
7% interest - MACT held that the vehicle was not being operated
as per the terms of permit and was in violation of terms and
conditions of insurance policy and, therefore, the owner of the
offending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation - Appellant
filed appeal before the High Court assailing the issue of liability -
High Court affirmed the findings of MACT and held that the vehicle
owner failed to produce the original permit - Hence, instant appeal
- Held:The material available clearly reveals that on the date of
accident, the appellant did not have a valid and effective permit to
ply the offending vehicle on the route where accident took place -
Even assuming that permit was valid but it is of no help to the
appellant since the vehicle was being plied on a route different
than specified in permit -The concurrent findings of fact do not
warrant any interference.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.146,147,149,159,160,164 and
166 - Just Compensation - Reasonable Compensation - Payment
of Compensation - Delay in disposal of claim cases - Payment of
compensation in a case of death or for damage to the body in a
motor accident claim may be based on arithmetical calculation -
How far it is just and reasonable, is a matter of satisfaction of the
Court by adopting a uniform approach - In assessing the
compensation uniformity and reasonability are required to be
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 43
43
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
followed - Directions issued - Constitution of India - Art. 142 -
Motor Vehicles Amendment Act - ss.149(2), 159, 164, 166 - Motor
Vehicle Amendment Rules, 2022 - r.30.
Dismissing the appeal and passing certain directions, the
Court
HELD: 1. On the date of accident, the appellant did not
have a valid and effective permit to ply the offending vehicle on
the route where accident took place. Having extensively gone
through the fact-finding exercise, it is categorically recorded by
MACT that the appellant was neither able to produce/prove the
original permit nor was able to prove the information received
under RTI Act. Even if RTI information is considered by which it
is not clear as to when the disputed permit was issued and by
whom. The alleged permit was issued on 28.07.2012, i.e., on
Saturday and no explanation is on 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 Transport Authority, but it does
not of any help to the appellant since the vehicle was being plied
on a route different than specified in permit. The appellant has
failed to give any explanation to refute the observations made by
MACT to ply the vehicle on Roorkee by-pass to Haridwar via
Meerut which 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 the impugned order. After going through
the record, the concurrent findings of fact do not warrant any
interference since they do not outrageously defy the logic as to
suffer from the vice of irrationality and neither incur the blame of
being 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 of
liability is hereby dismissed confirming the order passed by the
High Court and MACT.
ii) On receiving the intimation regarding road accident by
use of a motor vehicle at public place, the SHO concerned shall
take steps as per Section 159 of the M.V. Amendment Act.
iii) After registering the FIR, Investiga

## Text

_Characters 0–39,888 of 94,692. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39888 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
43
GOHAR MOHAMMED
v.
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION & 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-deceased
was 24 years old and working as Managing Director at DRV Drinks
Pvt. Ltd. - While he was returning from factory to residence, his car
was hit from behind by a bus owned by appellant -The deceased
sustained severe injuries and died on the way to hospital - Claim
petition - MACT awarded a total sum of Rs. 31,90,000/- alongwith
7% interest - MACT held that the vehicle was not being operated
as per the terms of permit and was in violation of terms and
conditions of insurance policy and, therefore, the owner of the
offending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation - Appellant
filed appeal before the High Court assailing the issue of liability -
High Court affirmed the findings of MACT and held that the vehicle
owner failed to produce the original permit - Hence, instant appeal
- Held:The material available clearly reveals that on the date of
accident, the appellant did not have a valid and effective permit to
ply the offending vehicle on the route where accident took place -
Even assuming that permit was valid but it is of no help to the
appellant since the vehicle was being plied on a route different
than specified in permit -The concurrent findings of fact do not
warrant any interference.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.146,147,149,159,160,164 and
166 - Just Compensation - Reasonable Compensation - Payment
of Compensation - Delay in disposal of claim cases - Payment of
compensation in a case of death or for damage to the body in a
motor accident claim may be based on arithmetical calculation -
How far it is just and reasonable, is a matter of satisfaction of the
Court by adopting a uniform approach - In assessing the
compensation uniformity and reasonability are required to be
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 43
43
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
followed - Directions issued - Constitution of India - Art. 142 -
Motor Vehicles Amendment Act - ss.149(2), 159, 164, 166 - Motor
Vehicle Amendment Rules, 2022 - r.30.
Dismissing the appeal and passing certain directions, the
Court
HELD: 1. On the date of accident, the appellant did not
have a valid and effective permit to ply the offending vehicle on
the route where accident took place. Having extensively gone
through the fact-finding exercise, it is categorically recorded by
MACT that the appellant was neither able to produce/prove the
original permit nor was able to prove the information received
under RTI Act. Even if RTI information is considered by which it
is not clear as to when the disputed permit was issued and by
whom. The alleged permit was issued on 28.07.2012, i.e., on
Saturday and no explanation is on 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 Transport Authority, but it does
not of any help to the appellant since the vehicle was being plied
on a route different than specified in permit. The appellant has
failed to give any explanation to refute the observations made by
MACT to ply the vehicle on Roorkee by-pass to Haridwar via
Meerut which 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 the impugned order. After going through
the record, the concurrent findings of fact do not warrant any
interference since they do not outrageously defy the logic as to
suffer from the vice of irrationality and neither incur the blame of
being 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 of
liability is hereby dismissed confirming the order passed by the
High Court and MACT.
ii) On receiving the intimation regarding road accident by
use of a motor vehicle at public place, the SHO concerned shall
take steps as per Section 159 of the M.V. Amendment Act.
iii) After registering the FIR, Investigating Officer shall
take recourse as specified in the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
45
and submit the FAR within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal. The
IAR and DAR shall be filed before the Claims Tribunal within
the time limit subject to compliance of the provisions of the Rules.
iv) The registering officer is duty bound to verify the
registration of the vehicle, driving licence, fitness of vehicle,
permit and other ancillary issues and submit the report in
coordination to the police officer before the Claims Tribunal.
v) The flow chart and all other documents, as specified in
the Rules, shall either be in vernacular language or in English
language, as the case may be and shall be supplied as per Rules.
The Investigating Officer shall inform the victim(s)/legal
representative(s), driver(s), owner(s), insurance companies and
other stakeholders with respect to the action taken following the
M.V. Amendment Rules and shall take steps to produce the
witnesses 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 Claim
Tribunals is required. Therefore, distribution memo attaching the
police stations to the Claim Tribunals shall be issued by the
Registrar General of the High Courts from time to time, if not
already issued to ensure the compliance of the Rules.
vii) In view of the M.V. Amendment Act and Rules, the
role of the Investigating Officer is very important. He is required
to comply with the provisions of the Rules within the time limit,
as prescribed therein. Therefore, for effective implementation
of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereunder,
the specified trained police personnel are required to be deputed
to deal with the motor accident claim cases. The Chief Secretary/
Director General of Police in each and every State/Union Territory
are directed to develop a specialized unit in every police station
or at town level and post the trained police personnel.
viii) On receiving FAR from the police station, the Claims
Tribunal shall register such FAR as Miscellaneous Application.
On filing the IAR and DAR by the Investigating Officer in
connection with the said FAR, it shall be attached with the same
Miscellaneous Application. The Claims Tribunal shall pass
appropriate orders in the said application to carry out the purpose
GOHAR MOHAMMED v. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules, as
discussed above.
ix) The Claim Tribunals are directed to satisfy themselves
with the offer of the Designated Officer of the insurance company
with an intent to award just and reasonable compensation. After
recording such satisfaction, the settlement be recorded under
Section 149(2) of the M.V. Amendment Act, subject to consent
by the claimant(s). If the claimant(s) is not ready to accept the
same, the date be fixed for hearing and affording an opportunity
to produce the documents and other evidence seeking
enhancement, the petition be decided. In the said event, the said
enquiry shall be limited only to the extent of the enhancement of
compensation, shifting onus on the claimant(s).
x) The General Insurance Council and all insurance
companies are directed to issue appropriate directions to follow
the mandate of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the
amended Rules. The appointment of the Nodal Officer prescribed
in Rule 24 and the Designated Officer prescribed in Rule 23 shall
be immediately notified and modified orders be also notified time
to time to all the police stations/stakeholders.
xi) If the claimant(s) files an application under Section 164
or 166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, on receiving the information,
the Miscellaneous Application registered under Section 149 shall
be sent to the Claims Tribunal where the application under
Section 164 or 166 is pending immediately by the Claims Tribunal.
xii) In case the claimant(s) or legal representative(s) of the
deceased have filed separate claim petition(s) in the territorial
jurisdiction of different High Courts, in the said situation, the
first claim petition filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s)
shall be maintained by the said Claims Tribunal and the
subsequent claim petition(s) shall stand transferred to the Claims
Tribunal where the first claim petition was filed and pending. The
claimant(s) are not required to apply before this Court seeking
transfer of other claim petition(s) though filed in the territorial
jurisdiction of different High Courts. The Registrar Generals of
the High Courts shall take appropriate steps and pass appropriate
order in this regard in furtherance to the directions of this Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
47
xiii) If the claimant(s) takes recourse under Section 164 or
166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, as the case may be, he/they are
directed to join Nodal Officer/Designated Officer of the insurance
company as respondents in the claim petition as proper party of
the place of accident where the FIR has been registered by the
police station. Those officers may facilitate the Claims Tribunal
specifying the recourse as taken under Section 149 of the M.V.
Amendment Act.
xiv) Registrar General of the High Courts, States Legal
Services Authority and State Judicial Academies are requested
to sensitize all stakeholders as early as possible with respect to
the provisions of Chapters XI and XII of the M.V. Amendment
Act and the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022 and to ensure the
mandate of law.
xv) For compliance of mandate of Rule 30 of the M.V.
Amendment Rules, 2022, it is directed that on disputing the
liability by the insurance company, the Claims Tribunal shall
record the evidence through Local Commissioner and the fee
and expenses of such Local Commissioner shall be borne by the
insurance company.
(xvi) The State Authorities shall take appropriate steps to
develop a joint web portal/platform to coordinate and facilitate
the stakeholders for the purpose to carry out the provisions of
M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules in coordination with any
technical agency and be notified to public at large.
Registry of this Court is directed to circulate the copy of
this judgment to the Registrar General of all High Courts and
the Chief Secretary/Administrator of all the States/Union
Territories for implementation and to carry out the purpose of
Motor 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) 2
SCC 607 : [2009] 16 SCR 710- followed.
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors. 2009 SCC Online
Del 4306; Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors. 2014
SCC OnLine Del 7626; M.R. Krishna Murthi v. The New
GOHAR MOHAMMED v. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 315approved.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 16 SCR 710
followed
 Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9322
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2018 of the High Court
of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No.3303/2018.
A. N. Krishnaswamy, Adv. (Amicus Curiae)
Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Adv. for the Appellant.
Ms. Garima Prashad, S. P. Jain, Sr. Advs., Nishit Agrawal, Harsh
Mishra, 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 the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been filed assailing the final order dated
06.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from
Order No. 3303 of 2018, vide which the appeal preferred by the appellant
against the award dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (for short 'MACT') in MACP No. 1107 of 2012 has been
dismissed. MACT allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation
of Rs. 31,90,000/- (Thirty-one lacs and ninety thousand only) in favour
of respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (legal representatives of deceased and
hereinafter referred to as 'claimants') to be paid by respondent No. 5
(Insurance Company), with further direction to recover the same from
appellant (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 at
DRV 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-pass
road near Sanhwali village (U.P.). The deceased sustained severe injuries
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
49
and died on the way to hospital. FIR was lodged against the driver as
well as owner of the offending vehicle and on 19.01.2012, claim petition
was filed by claimants before MACT seeking compensation of
Rs. 4,19,00,000/- (Four crores and nineteen lacs only) under various
heads.
4. The MACT vide order dated 04.05.2018, allowed the claim
petition and awarded a total sum of Rs. 31,90,000/- alongwith 7% interest.
While computing the loss of dependency, the annual income of the
deceased was accepted as Rs. 3,09,660/- after making deduction towards
personal expenses, multiplier of 18 was applied. It was held that the
vehicle was not being operated as per the terms of permit and was in
violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, therefore the owner
of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation.
5. Appellant filed appeal before the High Court assailing the issue
of liability contending, inter alia, no violation of guidelines as such was
there and submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with insurance
company indemnifying the liability. Appellant further contended that he
had Special Temporary Authorization (in short 'permit') to operate the
bus on the route for which the fee was paid. The High Court vide impugned
order affirmed the findings of MACT and held that the vehicle owner
failed to produce the original permit and also could not get the same
proved 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, the
appellant contested the instant appeal largely on the ground that failure
to produce the original permit cannot lead to an inference against him,
especially when such permit has been duly issued by Transport Authority
and confirmed in the reply under Right to Information Act (for short
'RTI Act'). It was further contended that the appellant had valid permit
as he deposited the due fee on the next day after the date of issuance of
permit and hence, the finding of Courts below that the appellant did not
have a valid permit, as such fastened the liability for payment of
compensation is unjust.
7. Per contra, the State as well as Insurance Company mainly
relied on the findings recorded by the Courts below to contend that the
offending vehicle was not being plied as per the terms and conditions of
the permit and also in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance
GOHAR MOHAMMED v. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
policy. It has further been contended that the offending vehicle stood
withdrawn from State transport services way back in 2009 and was no
more under the control of respondent No. 1, hence, the issue of liability
has rightly been decided.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the material available on record, it clearly reveals that on the date of
accident, the appellant did not have a valid and effective permit to ply
the offending vehicle on the route where accident took place. Having
extensively gone through the fact-finding exercise, it is categorically
recorded by MACT that the appellant was neither able to produce/prove
the original permit nor was able to prove the information received under
RTI Act. Even if RTI information is considered by which it is not clear
as to when the disputed permit was issued and by whom. The alleged
permit was issued on 28.07.2012, i.e., on Saturday and no explanation is
on 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 Transport
Authority, but it does not of any help to the appellant since the vehicle
was being plied on a route different than specified in permit. The appellant
has failed to give any explanation to refute the observations made by
MACT to ply the vehicle on Roorkee by-pass to Haridwar via Meerut
which 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 the
impugned order.
9. After going through the record, the concurrent findings of fact
do not warrant any interference since they do not outrageously defy the
logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality and neither incur the
blame of being perverse. In view of foregoing discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the arguments raised by appellant are bereft of
any 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, learned
counsel for the parties have expressed concern regarding delay in disposal
of the claims cases in trial court or at appellate stage. Emphasis has
been made to the 'Objects and Reasons' of Motor Vehicles Amendment
Act, 2019 (for short "M.V. Amendment Act") which is a benevolent
legislation brought with an intent to compensate the family of the
deceased and the persons suffered with injuries including permanent
disability as expeditiously as possible. It is said the mandate of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
provisions of the M.V. Amendment Act, Rules and recourse as specified
have not been followed by the stakeholders including Claims Tribunals
working under subordination of different High Courts.
11. It is urged, the legislation to pay compensation in monetary
terms for damages to person or property cannot put the claimant into his
original position. What may be the adequate amount for a wrongful
act is an extreme task. The payment of compensation in a case of
death or for damage to the body in a motor accident claim may be based
on arithmetical calculation. How far it is just and reasonable, is a matter
of satisfaction of the Court by adopting a uniform approach. While
determining compensation, he/she is required to be compensated as he/
she cannot sue again, therefore, the determination of compensation of
the damages is an extreme task. Therefore in assessing the compensation
uniformity and reasonability are required to be followed. In such cases,
dispensation of justice may cause social impact and may delay payment
of compensation. Therefore, direction to follow the mandate of law at
the earliest may be issued.
12. To advert the said issue, the assistance of learned Senior
Counsel Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. A.N. Venugopala
Gowda and learned counsel Mr. A.N. Krishna Swamy was sought as
amici curiae including Ms. Garima Prashad, Additional Advocate General
for State of U.P. They have rendered their assistance being officers of
the Court in true sense and spirit which we acknowledge.
13. Learned counsel for the parties and learned amici curiae have
mainly advanced their arguments with respect to M.V. Amendment Act
in particular Chapter XI thereof, inter alia, emphasizing the importance
of Sections 146, 149, 159, 160, 161, 164, 166 of the M.V. Amendment
Act. It is urged that the Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment), Rules,
2022 (for short "M.V. Amendment Rules") have also been brought into
force w.e.f. 1.4.2022 after the M.V. Amendment Act. Prior to the
amendment of Act and Rules, as per the directions issued by the Delhi
High Court and this Court, the standard operating procedure formulated
and circulated to all the High Courts was observed by choice, and the
outcome of its implementation was negligible. But, now by amendment,
a statutory regime is prescribed which is not being followed in most of
the High Courts and by subordinate courts though it is required to be
followed strictly. However, appropriate directions are required to
implement the regime of M.V. Amendment Act and Rules. In alternative,
GOHAR MOHAMMED v. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
the hurdle in implementation of the directions by joining the stake-holders
may be directed as deemed fit. In support of these contentions, recourse
as taken by the Delhi High Court as well as this Court in the case of
'Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., 2009 SCC Online
Del 4306' (for short "Rajesh Tyagi I"), 'Jai Prakash Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 607' (for short "Jai Prakash
I"), 'Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine
Del 7626' (for short "Rajesh Tyagi II"), 'Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs.
Jaibir Singh & Ors., 2017 SCC Online Del 4306' (for short "Rajesh
Tyagi III") have been relied upon, in addition to refer the provisions of
M.V. amendment Act and Rules.
14. After having heard learned counsels, we deem it necessary to
trace 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 to
deal with the claim cases since the time of accident.
Evolution of Motor Vehicles Act vis-à-vis 2019
Amendment15. In this regard, the distinguished attempt to address the ensuing
concerns was made by the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Tyagi I (supra).
In the said case, the Court while dealing with the question of effective
implementation of Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008
and Section 158(6) of M.V. Act (pre-2019 amendment) directed the
Station House Officers to submit 'accident information report' to MACT
within 30 days of accident and said report be treated as claim petition by
MACT for the purpose of inquiry. Suggestions were invited and later a
committee was constituted to find out a mechanism for time bound
settlement of motor accident claim cases. After deliberations from all
stakeholders, the committee submitted a draft of 'agreed procedure'
and consequently vide order dated 16.12.2009, the Delhi High Court
formulated "Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure" (for short 'CTAP')
for time bound settlement of motor accident claims within 90 to 120
days and directed its implementation only for trial as pilot project for a
period of six months from 15.01.2010 to 14.07.2010. The CTAP in addition
to Section 158(6), in a nutshell provided as follows -
1.
Mandatory intimation of factum of the accident by
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal within 48
hours of the accident and if information about insurance
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
company is available by that time, then intimation to
the concerned insurance company by email;
2.
Appointment of designated officer by insurance
company for each case immediately upon receipt of
intimation;
3.
Collection of relevant evidence by Investigating Officer
relating to accident as well as computation of
compensation (photographs, proof of age, proof of
income of deceased etc.);
4.
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) to be filed by
Investigating Officer before Claims tribunal within 30
days of the accident and a copy thereof to the concerned
insurance company;
5.
Copy of DAR alongwith documents to be submitted to
Legal Services Authority;
6.
Discretion of the Claims Tribunal on application made
for extension of time in cases where the Investigating
Officer is unable to complete the investigation within
30 days for reasons beyond his control;
7.
Production of driver, owner, claimant and eye-witnesses
before Claims Tribunal alongwith DAR;
8.
Furnishing of report by concerned Registration
Authority in Form-D of Delhi Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal Rules, 2008 to the Police and Claims Tribunal
within 15 days from the receipt of request;
9.
Examination of DAR by the Claims Tribunal as to
whether the DAR is complete in all respects or not;
10.
Treatment of DAR filed by Investigating Officer as claim
petition under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act (pre
2019 Amendment);
11.
Grant of 30 days' time to Insurance Company by Claims
Tribunal to examine the DAR and to take a decision as
to quantum of compensation;
12.
Assessment of compensation by designated officer
accompanied with reasoned order which shall constitute
GOHAR MOHAMMED v. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
a legal offer to the claimants and in case, when such
offer is acceptable to the claimant, Claims Tribunal to
pass a consent award with a further 30 days' time for
the insurance company to deposit the amount;
13.
Time period of not more than 30 days' to be granted by
Claims Tribunal to claimant to respond to offer made
by insurance company;
14.
Conduct of enquiry by Claims Tribunal under Section
168 and 169 (pre 2019 Amendment) and passing of
award within 30 days' in case of non-acceptance of
offer by claimant given by insurance company;
15.
Computation of compensation payable to the legal
representatives of deceased victims to be done by Claims
Tribunal in accordance with the principles laid down
by Hon. Supreme Court in 'Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, 2009
(6) SCALE 129';
16.
Minimum wage to be considered by Claims Tribunal in
cases where legal representatives of the deceased do
not have documentary evidence as to proof of income
of deceased;
17.
Consideration of principles laid down by Delhi High
Court 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. In
the output, it revolutionized the Motor Accident Compensation Scheme
due to which the claimant(s) received the compensation within 120 days
of the accident.
17. Another notable effort was made by this Court in 'Jai Prakash
I' (supra), wherein this Court identified majorly four issues i.e., firstly,
grant of compensation in cases of 'hit and run where the vehicles remain
unidentified which do not have insurance cover having third party
insurance 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 Accident
Claims Tribunal and following hardships to the victims; and fourthly,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
55
'the full amount of compensation not reaching the victims, particularly to
those who are uneducated'. Having regard to the nature of subject matter
and considering the suggestions made by amicus, vide order dated
17.12.2009 guidelines/directions were issued by this Court to be carried
out in three stages, the same are reproduced in brief as under:-
Directions to Police Authorities
1.
Director General of Police for each State is directed to
instruct all Police Stations in the State to comply with
provisions of Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act (pre
2019 Amendment) and submit Accident Information
Report in Form no. 54 accompanied with copies of First
Information Report, site sketch/mahazar/photographs,
insurance policy, etc. to the jurisdictional MACT and
insurance company within 30 days of registration of
FIR;
Directions to Claims Tribunals
1.
Registrar General of each High Court is directed to
instruct all Claims Tribunal in his State to register the
reports of accidents received under Section 158(6) of
the Act and deal with them without waiting for filing of
claim petition. Further, Registrar General shall ensure
that necessary registers, forms and other support is
extended to the Tribunal;
2.
Tribunal shall maintain an Institution Register for
recording Accident Information Reports received from
Station House Officers and register them as
miscellaneous petitions. Tribunal shall further fix a date
of preliminary hearing and after appearance of
claimants, it shall be converted into claim petition;
3.
Tribunal shall satisfy itself that the Accident Information
Report relates to a real accident and is not a result of
any collusion or fabrication;
4.
In case of non-dispute of liability by insurance
company, Tribunal shall make an endeavor to determine
the compensation amount by summary enquiry or refer
the matter to Lok Adalat for settlement and dispose-off
GOHAR MOHAMMED v. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
the claim petition itself within a time frame not exceeding
six months from the date of registration of claim petition;
5.
Tribunal shall direct insurance company to deposit the
admitted amount or the amount determined, with Claims
Tribunal within 30 days of determination;
Suggestions for Insurance Companies
1.
In case of death and non-dispute of liability by
insurance company, endeavor shall be made by
insurance company to pay compensation as per
standard formula to the family (legal representatives)
of deceased without waiting for decision of Tribunal or
settlement by Lok Adalat;
2.
In case of injuries and non-dispute of liability by
insurance company, the insurer should offer treatment
at its cost to the injured without waiting for award of
the Tribunal;
3.
To protect and preserve the compensation amount
awarded to families, special schemes in consultation
with Nationalized Banks and Life Insurance
Corporation of India may be considered by the
insurance companies under which the compensation is
kept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period and
interest is paid by Bank on monthly basis;
4.
Insurance companies may also consider offering annuity
instead of lump sum compensation and prepare an
annuity scheme with involvement of Life Insurance
Corporation of India.
Suggestions for Legislative/Executive intervention
1.
Formulation of more comprehensive scheme ensuring
payment of compensation to all accident victims of road
accidents;
2.
Introduction of hybrid model which involves collection
of fixed lifetime premium in regard to each vehicle plus
imposition of a road accident cess which may provide
more satisfactory solution in vast country like India;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
3.
Define 'third party' to cover any accident victim other
than the owner and increase the premia, if necessary;
4.
Consider rationalization of Second Schedule to the Act
and increase the quantum of compensation payable
under Section 161 of the Act in case of hit and run
motor accidents;
5.
Secure compensation to the victims of road accidents
involving uninsured vehicles by directing the owner of
vehicle to offer security or deposit an amount adequate
to satisfy the award as a condition precedent for release
of seized vehicle.
18. With the advent of time, the suggestions and guidelines issued
by Courts were adopted and implemented by the authorities. Progress
reports were filed by stakeholders at regular intervals for consideration
of court. Similarly, in furtherance of the directions given by Delhi High
Court in Rajesh Tyagi I (supra), the CTAP was implemented in the
territory of Delhi and certain lacunae were identified in its practical
implementation. Meetings were convened involving all the stakeholders
and further suggestions were presented before Court for incorporation
in order to make the guidelines more efficient. The suggestions were
duly considered, and Delhi High Court vide order dated 12.12.2014 in
'Rajesh Tyagi II' (supra) incorporated the suggestions and appended
the modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be implemented with
effect from 01.02.2015 for a period of six months subject to review
after expiry of three months. Following is the gist of modifications as
carried out and approved by Delhi High Court :-
1.
Intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer
has to be in Form I of the modified procedure (Clause
2);
2.
List of documents to be collected by Investigating Officer
is given under Clause 3;
3.
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) to be filed by
Investigating Officer shall be in Form II of the modified
procedure;
4.
Duty of Investigating Officer to seek directions from
Claims Tribunal in Part X of Form II of DAR, in event
GOHAR MOHAMMED v. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
of failure of driver/claimant/owner/ insurance company
to disclose relevant information and produce documents
before Investigating Officer within 15 days;
5.
Duty of insurance companies to get DAR verified by
their surveyor within 20 days of the receipt of copy of
DAR (Clause 20);
6.
Report of the Designated Officer of insurance company
shall be in Form III of modified procedure (Clause 21);
7.
Duty of Claims Tribunal to elicit the truth and satisfy
itself that the statements made in DAR are true before
passing the award (Clause 24);
8.
Duty of the Claims Tribunal to examine the claimants
before passing the award to ascertain their financial
condition, proof of residence etc. (Clause 26);
9.
Manner of deposit of award amount to be specified by
Claims Tribunal (Clause 27);
10.
Claims Tribunal to pass an appropriate order for
protection of award amount (Clause 28);
11.
Claims Tribunal shall deal with the compliance of
provisions in award (Clause 29);
12.
Claims Tribunal shall fix a date for reporting
compliance (Clause 30);
13.
Copy of DAR as well as award to be sent to concerned
Magistrate (Clause 31);
14.
Record of award passed by Claims Tribunal shall be
maintained in Form V (Clause 33);
19. The aforesaid modified procedure was given a seal of
affirmation by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2016 passed in Jai
Prakash I (supra), while reviewing the progress made with respect to
legislative changes that were suggested by previous order dated
17.12.2009. The modified procedure approved by Delhi High Court was
brought on record and after perusal, this Court observed as follows:
"We have also perused the procedure, which has been placed
before us as Annexure R5 with the response which, in our
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
59
view, appears to be a comprehensive one and that we can
issue further directions to the Registrar General of the Delhi
High Court to ensure that procedure is strictly followed insofar
as Delhi is concerned and also circulate the said procedure
to all the other High Courts and the Registrar General of all
the other High Courts are directed to ensure that the said
procedure is implemented through the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal in coordination with the Legal Service Authorities
as well as the Director General of Police of the States
concerned."
Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 06.11.2017, modified its
earlier 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 stand
modified to the extent that Justice Midha has himself modified
his earlier order on 12th December, 2014. The Registry will
send a copy of this order as well as the order passed by Justice
Midha on 12th December, 2014 to the Registrar General of
each High Court for necessary information and compliance.
List the matter on 23rd January, 2018."
20. In pursuance of the implementation of the guidelines, the
proceedings in Rajesh Tyagi I (supra) continued before Delhi High
Court and vide order dated 07.12.2018 (for short 'Rajesh Tyagi III'),
the Delhi High Court incorporated few more directions in the modified
CTAP. However, effective implementation of the modified procedure
remained a persistent roadblock at all levels, especially in terms of the
directions given by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2016 and 06.11.2017
in Jai Prakash I (supra). The said concern again came for consideration
before this Court in 'M.R. Krishna Murthi Vs. The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 315', wherein, vide order
dated 05.03.2019, this Court categorically noted that there was no
effective implementation of modified CTAP by Claim Tribunals at all
India level. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court directed National
Legal Services Authority to take up the matter and monitor the same in
co-ordination and co-operation with various High Courts. Further,
directions were also given to State Judicial Academies to sensitize the
Presiding Officers of Claim Tribunals, senior police officials and insurance
companies for implementation of modified CTAP. Lastly, this Court also
GOHAR MOHAMMED v. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
directed the Claim Tribunals pan India to implement 'Motor Accident
Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme' (for short 'MACAD Scheme') as
formulated by Delhi High Court in Rajesh Tyagi III (supra). The
relevant paragraphs are being reproduced below for ready reference -
"32. Notwithstanding the aforesaid ADR methods,
adjudicatory
process
before
the
MACTs
is
indispensable. 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 cases
without delays and within reasonable period. The Delhi
High Court has given few judgments providing for
mechanism to speed up the disposal of such cases and
to ensure that schemes are settled within a period of
90/120 days from the date of accident. In nutshell, these
directions include that on the occurrence of accident,
the police which comes into the picture in the first
instance, should complete the investigation and along
with filing of FIR before the concerned Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, copies are sent to MACT as
well as Insurance Company also. Insurance Company
is supposed to look into the same to find out as to
whether the claim is payable and within 30 days it
should respond to MACT and once all these documents
are before the MACT in the form of evidence etc., as
well, it would enable the MACT to decide the case within
30 days.......
33.
Vide order dated 06th November, 2017 in Jai Prakash
Case, this Court modified its order dated 13th May, 2016
and directed all States to implement the Modified Claims
Tribunal Agreed Procedure formulated by Delhi High
Court on 12th December, 2014. The copy of the Modified
Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure was directed to be
circulated to the Registrar General of each High Court
necessary for compliance.......
34.
This needs to be followed at all India level. NALSA
should take up and monitor the same as well in
coordination and cooperation with various High Courts
to facilitate the same.
xxx
xxx
xxx
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
37.
Thus, direction for implementation of the 'Claims
Tribunal Agreed Procedure' which is substituted by
modified procedure, as noted above, are already there.
However, we find that there is no proper implementation
thereof by the Claims Tribunals. We, thus, direct that
there should be programs (sic) from time to time, in all
State Judicial Academies to sensitize the presiding
officers of the Claims Tribunals, senior police officers
of the State Police as well as Insurance Company for
the implementation of the said Procedure.
21. Based on the guidelines issued by this Court and Delhi High
Court, recommendations were made by Group of Transport Ministers
(GoM) of States alongwith other stakeholders.