Motor Accident Claim Cases: Analysis in the light of a landmark judgment
The authors of this blog are Komal and Rajeev Ranjan Central
University Of South Bihar Ba
Llb (Hons.) (4th
Semester).
“Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”
– William
Ewart Gladstone
The above-quoted maxim emphasizes
the meaning of delayed justice. It takes years in the settlement of cases in
our judicial system. In this article, we present a recent example when the Apex
Court of our country gave a landmark judgment and tried to resolve the issue
of delayed practice in deciding the motor accident claims cases. We also most
humbly put forward some more reforms needed and some lacunas in the judgment.
The case dealt with is M.R. Krishna Murthi vs The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd[1] and was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 5 March 2019.
Facts
of the case
In this case, the appellant M.R Krishna Murthi is a
practicing advocate. In 1988, at the age of 18 years, he met with an accident
in which his entire left leg was crushed. Thereafter, he had to undergo
numerous surgeries and his treatment continued for over 6 years. As a result of
the aforesaid accident of such severity, the appellant is now suffering a
permanent disability of 40%, as per the disability certificate issued in 2005 by
the District Government Hospital. Then the appellant applied MACT[2]
claiming compensation. The MACT at Patiala House Court Complex, New Delhi, in
2007 attributed negligence of the driver of the Ambassador car which had hit
the appellant’s vehicle. MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 8,48,000 to the
appellant. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed an
appeal before the High Court contending that MACT had failed to take into
account the disability certificate but this contention was rejected by the High
Court. Thereafter, the appellant filed a review petition in which he contended
that an error was committed by MACT as it had applied the multiplier of 17
instead of 18 in calculating compensation. This plea was accepted by the High
Court and multiplier of 18 was applied which enhanced the compensation by Rs.
24000. After that, the appellant approached the Supreme Court with the plea
seeking reform in the motor vehicle accident claim system.
Reasoning
While deciding this case, the Supreme Court pointed out that
all injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity and the percentage of
loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent
disability. The same permanent disability may result in a different percentage
of loss of earnings based on the profession, education, age etc. Also, that the
loss of earning capacity has to be assessed by MACT and not by the doctor
treating the injured claimant. The court further discussed the various
conditions which have to be considered while calculating the compensation to be
granted in such cases like whether the victim was earning at the time of an
accident or not, family background, future earnings, career, nature of injuries
and difficulties to be faced in the future etc. The court discussed all this in
order to lessen the ambiguity arising due to the varying facts of each case.
Analysis
This case deals with several aspects. The Supreme Court
after applying the aforementioned reasoning enhanced the compensation by Rs.
6,54,000. The focus of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the functional disability
in calculating the quantum of compensation is admirable because it is the
functional disability which affects the earning capacity of an aggrieved person.
The Court has demarcated the difference between permanent disability and
functional disability in the context of determining the loss of future income.
The Court has accepted the reforms suggested by the Learned
Senior Counsel Mr. Arun Mohan. The Court admits the need for mediation for
dispute resolution. This approach of the Court is estimable. Mediation refers
to the method of alternative dispute resolution where a neutral third person
attempts to make the parties settle the dispute. In mediation, the mediator
does not propose a settlement but creates an atmosphere that enables parties
to propose and settle the dispute. This has significant implications on the
legitimacy of the process and a sense of complete control of the parties over
the dispute and its resolution. The Court recommended the Government to examine
the feasibility of setting up MAMA[3]. The
Court also expresses a dire need to enact Indian Mediation Act as well. We
believe our legal system does not just need mediation legislation, rather, the
disputes should be seen holistically. Some other methods of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) should also be considered and the Court should have pointed
them out. Mostly, in this case, the Court has limited its direction and order
to the suggestions of Mr. Arun Mohan. Also, there is no specialized training
depending on the kind of dispute to be handled in the process of mediation.
However, there are several benefits of Mediation itself. We
know that delay in the adjudication process has several impacts on the victim.
The lengthy processes affect them physically, economically, and mentally too.
One very important point dealt very well by the Hon’ble Court is that the ultimate payout does not reach the recipient completely.
In the judgment, the Court has emphasized more on the fast
track disposal of the case. One thing worth pointing out is that the Motor
Vehicles Act[4] is a
beneficial legislation and as mentioned by the Petitioner Counsel, more than
90% of sufferers do not have access to justice. It shows that most people have
been deprived of the benefits of beneficial legislation. It is somehow
defeating the purpose of the Act. The Supreme Court may have considered this
fact more strongly. Another is about the adequacy of compensation. Aggrieved
parties should be provided with adequate compensation at the MACT level so that
they need not require appealing to the Higher Courts for this very reason. In
the instant case also, the appellant had to approach the Higher Courts for the
enhancement of the quantity of compensation. There appears a lack of proper
direction or order to fix this problem at the lower judiciary.
Conclusion
India has the largest number of road accidents in the world.
MACT has a mountain of pending cases. So, the judgment is a landmark due to
its significance. The use of mediation has been explored but not practiced with
consistency. Mediation is a concept for dispute resolution that is less
technical, quick, and cheaper in an accident claim case. Adequate compensation
is essential for providing financial support to and for the rehabilitation of
the victims and their dependents. Motor Vehicles Act is not only a penal
statute but is also beneficial legislation and the judgment reflects this
also. Definitely, this case will mark its impact in deciding the future cases
also. The Supreme Court has tried to make the accident claim case journey
easier. Judiciary must take such realistic moves in other cases also.
[1] Civil Appeal No.
2476-2477 of 2019
[2] Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
[3] Motor Accident Mediation Authority
Comments
Post a Comment