THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, June 11: Expressing serious concern over prolonged delays in motor accident compensation cases, the Supreme Court has issued a series of directions aimed at expediting proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and High Courts across the country.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice A.G. Masih observed that an analysis of more than 100 motor accident compensation cases decided by the apex court revealed an average pendency of approximately six years before Claims Tribunals and around eight years in High Courts.
“The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to state the obvious, is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing just and fair compensation. Both of these salutary values are denuded by long pendency,” the Court observed.
Mandatory Documents to Be Filed with Claims
The Supreme Court noted that delays at the Tribunal level are often caused by claim petitions being filed without essential supporting documents, resulting in repeated adjournments.
To address this issue, the Court directed that claimants should furnish all relevant documents, wherever applicable, along with their claim petitions.
The Bench specified that:
- Proof of age (excluding Aadhaar cards) must be filed in all cases.
- Disability claims should include certificates issued by competent doctors indicating the percentage and functional extent of disability.
- Income claims must be supported by documents such as income tax returns, salary slips or employer-certified salary certificates.
- Medical expense claims should be backed by duly attested hospital or clinic bills.
- Claims for attendant charges must include a notarised affidavit detailing the attendant’s salary.
High Courts Asked to Prioritise Older Appeals
Highlighting the significant backlog in appellate courts, the Supreme Court requested Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure that MACT appeals are listed according to their age.
The Court suggested that cases pending for more than four years should receive priority, with the oldest matters being heard first.
“For clarity, it may be stated that if matter ‘a’ has been pending for eight and a half years and ‘b’ has been pending for four years, ‘a’ will be listed first,” the Bench said.
The Court also requested High Courts to assess whether additional benches dedicated to MACT matters are required to reduce pendency.
Greater Use of Summary Procedure Urged
The Bench stressed the need for wider adoption of the summary procedure envisaged under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
While acknowledging that the procedure is not mandatory, the Court directed Tribunals to record reasons whenever they choose not to adopt it.
“It would be in favour of expediency if reasons are recorded by the Tribunals for not choosing to adopt such procedure. If it is adopted where possible, it would go a long way in ensuring that the deserved compensation reaches the claimants as soon as possible,” the Court observed.
Court Highlights Two-Decade Delay in Compensation Case
The directions were issued while hearing an appeal in which the Court examined a compensation matter that remained pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for nearly two decades.
The appeal was filed in 2004 and was decided only towards the end of 2024.
The Court noted that a fire in 2011 had destroyed or damaged thousands of court records, including files related to the case. However, it questioned the extraordinary delay in reconstructing records and disposing of the matter.
“The appeal was filed before the High Court in 2004. The unfortunate fire incident happened in 2011. The case came to be decided at the fag end of 2024,” the Bench observed.
Raising concerns about institutional delays, the Court asked:
“Why was the case arising out of a beneficial legislation pending in 2011 when it was filed in 2004? Further, between 2011 and 2024 is a period of 14 years—does the reconstruction of a file or number of files take 14 years?”
Delays Compound the Suffering of Claimants
The Supreme Court emphasised that delays in compensation cases defeat the very objective of the Motor Vehicles Act, which seeks to provide timely and just relief to accident victims and their families.
“Although it is never possible to fully compensate for the loss of a person who has been an integral part of a family, the idea of ‘just and fair’ compensation requires that an amount of money be paid to the claimants that would, as far as possible, place them in a position as if the unfortunate incident had not taken place. When this takes twenty years, the suffering is only compounded further,” the Court observed.
‘An Unhappy Picture’ of Pendency
To assess the extent of delays, the Bench examined over 100 MACT appeals decided by Supreme Court Benches headed by Justice Karol.
The analysis revealed:
- Average pendency before MACTs: Approximately six years
- Average pendency in High Courts: Around eight years
- Nearly half the cases examined had remained pending in High Courts for more than four years
Describing the situation as “an unhappy picture,” the Court stressed the need for judicial vigilance and systemic reforms to ensure that compensation reaches claimants without undue delay.
The Bench also noted that in many cases, the interest accrued during years of litigation becomes a significant component of the final compensation amount, underscoring the adverse impact of prolonged pendency.