16 July 2024 Motor Accident >> Family Law  

Recent judicial decisions in the matter of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v/s Union of India & Others, have addressed concerns surrounding the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2022, particularly Rule 150A and its implications for claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This article summarizes key points from a recent ruling that granted applications for impleadment and provided clarity on the legal framework governing compensation claims.

Context of the Ruling:

The petitioners raised issues regarding Rule 150A, arguing that it might impede the Court’s authority under Sections 168, 169, and 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Senior Counsel S. Prabakaran contended that Rule 36 is unnecessary and hinders claimants from receiving lump-sum compensation, especially when disputes are resolved through mediation.

The Role of Rule 150A:

Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, acting as Amicus Curiae, clarified that Rule 150A pertains solely to the procedural aspects of road accident investigations. He emphasized that it does not conflict with the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. Instead, it aligns with Section 159, which allows information on accidents to be treated as a formal complaint. Furthermore, the Rule addresses potential limitation issues that may arise after standard timeframes have passed.

Claims Tribunal’s Responsibilities:

Rule 21 of the Amendment outlines the Claims Tribunal's obligation to treat a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This stipulation enhances the welfare provisions for claimants, enabling legal representatives to secure adequate compensation more effectively. Importantly, claimants are provided access to DAR Reports, which strengthens their position in court.

Concerns Regarding Lump-Sum Payments:

Counsel Prabakaran expressed concern that Rule 36 might prevent claimants from receiving full compensation upfront. However, Rule 35 offers Tribunals the discretion to determine how compensation is distributed. This means that Tribunals can decide whether to release the entire amount or allocate i t in parts, based on case-specific circumstances. The expectation is that the Tribunal will provide clear reasoning for its decisions in this regard.

Conclusion:

With these clarifications, the Court has resolved the petitions and applications concerning the Rules. Future proceedings will continue to evolve, and the learned counsel representing the respondents are directed to respond to suggestions made by the Union of India within a stipulated timeframe. This matter is set to be revisited on September 3, 2024. This ruling illustrates the ongoing efforts to balance procedural integrity with the rights of claimants, ensuring that the welfare of individuals affected by road accidents remains a priority within the legal framework.

  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988