- (1.) We propose to address four problems frequently faced in motor accident claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short).
(2.) The first problem relates to a section of motor accident victims who are doubly unfortunate - first in getting involved in an accident, and second, in not getting any compensation. Let us elaborate. There are two categories of victims in motor accidents - those who will be able to get compensation and those who will not be able to get compensation. Victims of motor accidents involving insured vehicles, who are assured of getting compensation from the insurer, fall in the first category. Victims of motor accidents involving the following categories of vehicles, who do not receive any compensation fall under the second category: (i) Hit and run vehicles which remain unidentified. (ii) Vehicles which do not have any insurance cover. (iii) Vehicles with third party insurance, carrying persons who are not covered by the insurance (gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle or a car, and pillion riders on two wheelers etc.) In hit and run cases, the victim has no one from whom he can claim or get compensation. In regard to vehicles which do not have any insurance or do not have an insurance covering the risks relating to gratuitous passengers/riders, even if the driver/owner may be made liable under an award of the Tribunal, there is little or no chance of recovery of compensation that may be awarded. This is because normally driver and owners of uninsured vehicles will not have the capacity to pay the compensation or would have transferred their assets to escape paying compensation. It is estimated that around 20% of the victims of motor accidents fall under the unfortunate categories who do not get any compensation (except some who may get a token amount under Section 161 or 140 of the Act). A person hit by an uninsured vehicle, feels frustrated, cheated and discriminated, when he does not get any compensation, but sees another person hit by an insured vehicle getting compensation. The victim does not choose the vehicle which hits him, nor any role in causing the accident. But a victim is denied compensation, if the vehicle which hits disappears without trace, or if the vehicle is without insurance, while a similar victim hit by an insured vehicle gets compensation. Should the State, which by law provided for compulsory third party insurance to protect motor accident victims, ignore these 20% victims who do not get compensation or provide them with some effective remedy Should the State go something to reduce the incidence of non-insurance
(3.) The second problem relates to the widespread practice of using goods vehicles for passenger traffic. Such use is primarily due to the following four reasons: (a) Non-availability of regular mode of passenger transport in several parts of the country, particularly in rural areas, compelling people to use lorries and other goods vehicles as modes of transport to reach their destinations. (b) Non-availability of contract carriages for group travel during special occasions. Consequently, large groups of people use, again mostly in rural areas, goods vehicles (lorries and tractor-trailers) for group travel on occasions like marriages, festivals, functions and political rallies. (c) Frequent break-down of buses/cars/other vehicles (on roads with sparse traffic) due to bad maintenance of roads or the vehicles, or other emergencies forcing the stranded passengers to use goods vehicles to reach nearest city or town from which they can get regular recognized modes of transport. (d) The temptation of lorry drivers to make a quick buck by carrying passengers for a fare (with or without the knowledge of the owner) coupled with the attraction of a low fare for the poor and needy. (These passengers though termed as 'gratuitous' passengers, except in a few cases, are fare paying illegal passengers). Where persons travel in a goods vehicle either knowing or not knowing that such travel is illegal (gratuitously or by paying an illegal 'fare' to the driver or owner) and such the vehicle is involved in an accident resulting in injuries to such passengers, various legal and moral questions arise. Whether the victims are entitled to compensation Whether the insurer is liable Whether the owner, who may be unaware of such illegal carriage by the driver, can be made liable Whether the owner and driver of goods vehicles should be made liable to pay compensation, even where they were carrying passengers stranded on the road, gratuitously only out of sympathy Whether 'illegal' passengers should be denied compensation as a deterrent to discourage unauthorized travel Should we ignore the harsh reality that as long as the causes necessitating or forcing people to resort to such illegal travel in goods vehicles continue to exist, people will continue to travel in goods vehicles, unmindful of the risk, whether legal or illegal;