Motor Accident Claims

What are Motor Accident Claims?

Motor accident claims refer to the legal remedies available to victims of motor vehicle accidents or their legal representatives. These claims typically seek compensation for injuries, fatalities, or property damage resulting from road accidents.

Official Definition of 'Motor Accident Claims'

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as defined in Legislation

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under Chapter X, XI, and XII, provides a comprehensive framework for motor accident claims. Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 constitutes Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) to adjudicate claims for compensation arising from motor accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons.

Legal Provisions related to Motor Accident Claims

Types of Claims

Motor accident claims are broadly categorized based on whether the claimant needs to prove fault or whether compensation is provided without establishing negligence. These distinctions ensure that victims of road accidents, regardless of the specifics of their cases, can receive compensation. The two primary types of claims are no-fault claims and fault-based claims, each governed by different provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

No-Fault Liability

The principle of No-Fault Liability is given under Section 140 of Motor Accident Act, 1988. The concept, initially established in 1939, is replicated in this section. According to this principle, the claimant(s) can obtain instant compensation without having to prove negligence. This guarantees prompt financial comfort. Nonetheless, the amount of compensation under this section are fixed to Rs. 25,000 in respect of death of any person and Rs. 20,000 in respect of permanent disablement of any person. Claimants may seek greater compensation under other clauses.

Section 140 of the Act deals with interim compensation which does not bar the claimant from claiming compensation under any other law. It was observed by Supreme Court that in sub Section 5 of Section 140 of the Act the expression “also” has been used which is indicative of the fact that the owner of the vehicle would be additionally liable to pay compensation under any other la for the time being in force. Proviso appended to sub-section (5) of Section 140 states that the amount of compensation payable under any other law for the time being in force is to be reduced from the amount of the compensation payable under sub-section (2) thereof or under Section 163-A of the Act. Right to claim compensation under Section 140, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 141 is in addition to any other right to claim compensation on the principle of fault liability.

Fault Liability

In contrast to the no-fault claims, fault-based claims require the claimant to prove that the accident was caused due to the negligence or fault of the vehicle’s driver. Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant must show that the accident was caused by the driver's failure to adhere to traffic laws or exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm. To do this, the claimant must gather various forms of evidence. This includes the First Information Report (FIR) filed with the police, which outlines the details of the accident and helps establish the driver’s involvement. Additionally, medical reports that document the extent of the injuries sustained are crucial for demonstrating the severity of the harm caused. Eyewitness testimony and photographs of the scene can further support the claim by providing an independent account of the incident. In more complex cases, accident reconstruction reports may be used to demonstrate the exact cause of the accident and the driver’s fault.

Compensation under no-fault liability

Under the 1939 Act, claimants, particularly widows and young children, faced difficulty proving fault due to limited resources. The 1982 amendment introduced Section 92A, which allowed for "liability without fault," enabling claimants to receive compensation without demonstrating negligence. Initially, compensation amounts were modest, but the 1988 and 1994 amendments progressively increased these sums to better address inflation and offer more meaningful relief to victims.

Insurance Policy

Section 146 specifically provides that no person shall use, except as a passenger or allow any other person to use a motor Vehicle in a public place unless there is in force a policy of insurance. It is also provided in Sub Section 2 of Section 146 that the provision relating to insurance policy shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central or State Government but this does not mean that vehicle owned by the state government cannot obtain policy from an insurance company. It is optional for the centre or the state government to obtain the policy of insurance in respect of vehicle belonging to the Centre or State government.

Section 147 of the deal with the requirement and limits of liability in respect of policy issued by the insurance company. The Tribunals are required to examine the certificate of insurance, insurance policy as well as terms and condition contained therein before fastening the liability on insurance company. Most of the insurance companies are issuing different kinds of policies so as to cover different type of risks. However, Act policy or third party insurance is the minimum policy which is required to be obtained by the owner of the vehicle so as to use the vehicle in a public place.

Hit and Run motor accidents

Section 161 of Motor Accident Act, 1988 provides for compensation for hit-and-run motor accidents. A 'Hit and Run Motor Accident' is one in which the identity of the motor vehicle which has caused death or injury to the person(s) is not known. As per the Hit and Run Motor Accident Compensation Scheme-2022 the compensation payable to Hit and Run victims (with effect from 1st April 2022) is Rs 2,00,000 for death and Rs 50,000 for grievous hurt.

How to claim compensation?

Application for compensation, is required to be submitted by the injured victim himself/ herself or dependent/ legal representative of the death victim to Claims Settlement Commissioner of the district where the respective accident has taken place.

• Duly completed Formats I, II, III & IV, along with supportive documents are required to be sent by the respective district authorities to General Insurance Council by post or to the Council’s dedicated e-mail id i.e. hitandrunschemeclaims@gicouncil.in
• Payments for successful applications are released by the Council directly into the bank accounts of the beneficiaries.

Formula to calculate compensation

This was added by the 1994 amendment, offers compensation according to a methodical formula that is listed in the Act's Second Schedule. Using a multiplier based on the victim's age and yearly income, this method determines compensation, deducting one-third to cover personal expenses. At least Rs. 50,000 is given to the claimants, plus extra for burial costs, consortium loss, and estate loss.

Appeal against decision of Claims Tribunal

Provides for an appeal process in cases where a person is dissatisfied with the award passed by the Claims Tribunal under the Act. It allows the claimant or the insurer to appeal the decision to the High Court. The appeal must be filed within a specified period, which is typically 90 days from the date of the award. This provision ensures that the parties have a legal recourse to challenge the tribunal's decision if they believe it to be unjust.

Madhya Pradesh Calculation Software

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has developed a “Claim Calculator Software” to assist in estimating compensation for motor accident claims. This tool is designed to provide advocates, litigants, and insurance companies with a reliable way to calculate tentative compensation amounts in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cases. It operates within the legal framework established by landmark Supreme Court judgments, including those in the Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi cases, which standardize the calculation of just compensation. The software requires key inputs such as the type of injury (death or permanent disability), the name of the deceased, details of the accident, and other relevant personal data. It then uses this information to calculate compensation based on accepted formulas and factors like age, income, and dependents. Accessible via the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s official website, this digital tool streamlines the claims process, reduces disputes over compensation amounts, and ensures greater consistency and transparency in motor accident claim proceedings.

Multiplier Method

The multiplier method is a judicially accepted and standardized approach for calculating just compensation in motor accident claims, particularly for cases involving death or permanent disability. This method aims to ensure uniformity, predictability, and fairness in awarding compensation by linking it to the victim’s earning capacity and the dependency of their family.

Step 1: Determination of Annual Income

The first step involves establishing the annual income of the deceased or injured person at the time of the accident. This includes their salary, wages, or business income. In some cases, courts may also consider future prospects, acknowledging the likelihood of wage increases or promotions. For instance, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that future prospects must be added to the income, depending on the age and employment status of the deceased.

Step 2: Deduction for Personal Expenses

Next, a deduction is made to account for the personal expenses of the deceased, as they would have spent a portion of their earnings on themselves. Generally, one-third of the income is deducted for unmarried individuals and one-fourth for married individuals, leaving the “annual loss of dependency” amount.

Step 3: Selection of the Multiplier

The “multiplier” is then selected based on the age of the deceased or injured person at the time of the accident. The landmark case Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) laid down a structured table to determine the appropriate multiplier, balancing life expectancy and earning potential. For example:

Age 15–20: Multiplier 16

Age 21–25: Multiplier 17

Age 26–30: Multiplier 18

Age 31–35: Multiplier 17

Age 36–40: Multiplier 16

Age 41–45: Multiplier 15

Age 46–50: Multiplier 13

…and so on, reducing with increasing age.

Step 4: Final Compensation for Loss of Dependency

The final compensation for “loss of dependency” is calculated by multiplying the “annual loss of dependency” with the chosen multiplier. For example, if the annual loss is ₹2,00,000 and the multiplier is 15, the compensation will be ₹30,00,000.

Step 5: Additional Heads of Compensation

Apart from the loss of dependency, additional heads of compensation are awarded, which include:

• Loss of consortium (for spouse)
• Loss of care and guidance (for children)
• Funeral expenses
• Medical expenses (if injury-related)
• Loss of estate The Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi provided standard amounts for these heads to ensure uniformity.

Key Benefits of the Multiplier Method

The multiplier method minimizes subjective decision-making and ensures consistent, fair awards across different tribunals. It reflects the economic loss to dependents realistically while balancing the financial impact on insurers and respondents.

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as defined in Case Laws

Concept of Accident

Union of India v Sunil Kumar Ghosh [1984]

In Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh, the court distinguished between routine events inherent to activities and those unexpected occurrences that qualify as accidents or mishaps. It observed An accident refers to an unforeseen event or occurrence that takes place unexpectedly, surprising those involved. It is characterized by the unexpected rather than the anticipated. Essentially, an event that is ordinarily expected during a routine activity, such as a rail journey, cannot be classified as an accident. In contrast, an accident involves the happening of something that deviates from the usual course of events and is not inherent to the normal conditions of an activity. It denotes a mishap resulting from circumstances that are unusual and unpredictable.

Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sayeeda Khatoon [2009]

This case of Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sayeeda Khatoon (2009) clarified the interpretation of the phrase "accident out of the use of a motor vehicle." The Court held that this expression refers to situations where a motor vehicle is directly involved in an accident, resulting in death or disablement of its occupants or other individuals impacted by the vehicle's movement. The provision does not extend to compensating individuals involved in unrelated incidents, such as kidnappers or hijackers killed by villagers, merely because they were using a motor vehicle.

Insurance Claims

Smt. Alka Shukla v Life Insurance Corporation of India [2019]

In Smt. Alka Shukla v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of accident benefit clauses in insurance policies. The primary issue was whether both 'the means causing the injury or death' and 'the outcome' itself must be accidental for an insurance claim to succeed.

The Court held that to sustain a claim under an accident benefit cover, the claimant must establish a clear causal link between the accident and the bodily injury. The injury must result solely and directly from the accident without interference from any other cause. Furthermore, the accident must be caused by external, violent, and visible means.

The judgment also emphasized that the injury must independently and directly lead to the assured's death within 180 days of the accident. This condition requires the injury to be the proximate and exclusive cause of death, without the influence of other factors.

National Insurance Company Limited v Swaran Singh [2004]

This case primarily dealt with fake or invalid driving licenses. The Supreme Court held that mere absence of a valid driving license is not sufficient defense for insurers against third parties. The insurer must prove that the insured was guilty of negligence in verifying the license and that the breach was "fundamental" enough to have contributed to the accident. The burden of proof lies entirely on the insurance company.

The judgment introduced the "pay and recover" principle where even when breach is established, the insurer must first pay compensation to third-party victims and can then recover the amount from the insured owner. The court enumerated ten specific principles in paragraph 102 that have become the cornerstone of insurance liability jurisprudence.

Determining Compensation Amount

Ranju Rani alias Ranju Devi v Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited [2002]

In this case Ranju Rani alias Ranju Devi v. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited (2002), the issue was whether the death of an individual, alleged to have resulted from a motor vehicle incident, qualified for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal ruled that the death in this instance was a case of "murder simpliciter" rather than an accident involving the use of a motor vehicle. Consequently, it did not meet the criteria for compensation under the Act.

Sri Nagarajappa v The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011]

In Sri Nagarajappa v. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 1785), the Supreme Court outlined a three-step approach to assess the impact of permanent disability on a claimant's earning capacity. This process is critical for determining compensation in motor accident cases involving physical impairment.

The first step requires the Tribunal to ascertain the activities that the claimant can still perform despite the disability and identify those they can no longer carry out. This assessment also influences compensation under the category of loss of life amenities.

The second step involves examining the claimant’s avocation, profession, and nature of work prior to the accident, along with their age. This helps evaluate how the disability has affected their pre-accident capabilities.

In the third step, the Tribunal determines the extent of the disability by evaluating whether the claimant is (i) completely unable to earn a livelihood, (ii) capable of performing their previous tasks without significant impairment, or (iii) restricted to limited or alternative activities to maintain some form of livelihood.

Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [2010]

In the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Co Ltd. a similar approach as the Rajesh Tyagi case was emphasized. The Court highlighted the necessity of carefully correlating disability with its impact on earning capacity, ensuring fair and just compensation for accident victims.

General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v Susamma Thomas [1994]

This landmark judgment standardized the multiplier method for calculating compensation in motor accident claims, ending the chaos of different High Courts using wildly varying methods and multipliers ranging from 30 to 34.

The Supreme Court established comprehensive guidelines for both compensation calculation and protection of awards. The multiplier method was adopted as the accepted standard for determining loss of dependency.

It also established that compensation for minors must be invested in long-term fixed deposits until they attain majority; similar protections apply for illiterate persons and widows. The court directed that fixed deposits should prohibit loans against them, with interest paid monthly directly to claimants.

Kirti v Oriental Insurance Co. Limited [2021]

A three-judge bench judgment that revolutionized compensation assessment for housewives and homemakers by recognizing the economic value of unpaid domestic labor. The case involved death of both spouses in a 2014 motorcycle accident in Delhi.

The court held that housewives' contributions cannot be compared to paid servants who work fixed hours. A homemaker provides 24-hour care, teaching, guidance and management that no paid help can replicate. The judgment referenced three scholarly methods for valuation: opportunity cost, partnership method, and replacement method.

Critically, the court mandated that future prospects (40% for those under 40) must be added to homemakers' notional income, applying Pranay Sethi principles. Personal expense deduction was set at 25% (not 1/3rd) for homemakers with dependents.

Time Limits to Resolve Cases

ICICI Lombard v. Ayiti Navaneetha [2019]

This case involved a Supreme Court challenge to Section 166(3) of India's Motor Vehicles Act, which introduced a strict six-month time limit for filing accident compensation claims, a provision challenged as violating accident victims' fundamental rights. The court decided to remove this time limit and said that no motor accident claim should be time barred.

Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh [2009]

In Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh, Justice Midha framed a Special Scheme on 16th December, 2009 for time bound settlement of Motor Accident Claims within 90 to 120 days which was implemented in Delhi with effect from April 2010.

In Rajesh Tyagi’s case, Justice Midha recommended to the Government to amend the Motor Vehicles Act to incorporate the Special Scheme formulated by the Delhi High Court. Justice Midha also advised the Government to create a Road Accident Fund for providing compulsory insurance coverage to all road users. Justice Midha also recommended to the Central Government to incorporate the new Scheme in Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The Central Government has accepted the above recommendations and has amended the Motor Vehicles Act, by Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019 which came into force on 1st April, 2022. The Central Government has also incorporated the entire Scheme along with the formats annexed to the Judgment dated 8th January, 2021 in Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 which came into force on 1st April, 2022.

S Rajaseekaran v Union of India & Ors WP(C) No 295/2012

A bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and K.V.Vishwanathan observed that abating the proceedings in one shot would remove the deterrent effect of these offences. The impact of such a provision is going to be drastic, the bench directed the UP government to file its response to a plea that has sought striking down of the 2023 Act as unconstitutional.

The court provided the following reliefs in this case:

Restart all the trials: Bring back all the Motor Vehicles Act cases that were pending on December 31, 2021, and ignore the UP law that shut them down.

Declare the UP law unconstitutional: This was done since the State didn't get the President's approval which is required when a state law contradicts a central law .The law conflicts with the national Motor Vehicles Act.

Call out the pattern of abuse: The court pointed out that UP has done this 5 times since 1979, wiping out cases every few years for 44 years straight. This includes: 1979 law, 2016 law, 2018 law, 2019 law and the 2023 law. This pattern encourages people to break traffic rules knowing cases will be dropped, leading to more accidents and deaths. UP has the highest road fatalities in India.

Highlight the unfairness: The law treats everyone the same whether they paid their fines or not, which is unfair to those who followed the rules.

Point out poor enforcement: Out of 3.57 crore traffic challans issued, only 0.96 crore were actually processed, showing the system does not work.

Motor Accident Claims as defined in Official Reports

119th Law Commission Report

According to the 119th Law Commission Report (1987) report, Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are specialized and effective mechanisms for handling compensation claims arising from motor accidents. They exist in order to reduce the burden on regular civil courts, promote faster resolution of cases and ensure that victims or the legal representatives receive timely justice.

The report also recommended amending section 110A(2) so as to provide that every claim application shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or works for gain, at the option of the claimant.

Motor Accident Claims as defined in Official Documents

Scheme for Motor Accident Claims

The first step involves the Investigating Officer (IO) submitting a First Accident Report (FAR) in Form-I to the Claims Tribunal within 48 hours of an accident. This report is also shared with the victims, the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA), and uploaded online for transparency. Within 10 days, victims are provided Form-II outlining their rights and the scheme’s flowchart.

The driver and vehicle owner must submit Forms III and IV respectively within 30 days, disclosing crucial details like license validity, insurance, and vehicle fitness. Insurance companies are mandated to appoint Nodal Officers and Designated Officers to ensure accountability and speedy verification of claims. The scheme introduces an Interim Accident Report (IAR) to be filed within 50 days and a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) within 90 days of the accident. The DAR, considered as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, must be shared with all stakeholders including victims, insurers, and DSLSA.

The Claims Tribunal is required to treat the DAR as a claim petition and conduct an inquiry to determine liability and compensation. If the insurance company accepts liability and offers fair compensation, a consent award is issued. Otherwise, the Tribunal must decide the claim within nine to twelve months of the accident.

For monitoring compliance and resolving issues, a Committee comprising a High Court judge, DSLSA’s Member Secretary, a Police Commissioner’s nominee, an official from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, and the Secretary General of the General Insurance Council was set up. This Committee ensures monthly reports are filed by police and insurance companies, proposes remedial measures, and oversees the effective implementation of the scheme.

This scheme has set a high standard for other jurisdictions, with its emphasis on digitisation, including convenient digitalised forms, electronic submission of reports, and periodic reviews. Overall, it reflects a significant step forward in ensuring quick and fair compensation for motor accident victims.

Scheme for MAC

Delhi

The Delhi High Court’s 'Scheme for Motor Accident Claims' was implemented from 2nd April 2021 to ensure time-bound, fair, and efficient disposal of motor accident claims. Recognising the human tragedy of road accidents and their socio-economic impact, the scheme aims to provide quick compensation to victims and their families, addressing delays and bottlenecks in the previous system.

The scheme was formulated to replace the earlier “Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure” and is a product of continuous improvement, including orders from the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co and M. R. Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. It lays down a detailed timeline and process for police, insurance companies, victims, and claims tribunals to follow, ensuring transparency and speedy justice. Initially, the scheme was meant for implementation only in Delhi but was recommended for a pan-India implementation through Supreme Court directives.

Tamil Nadu

Leading Example Tamil Nadu has implemented an online version of the DAR regime, which went live from March 1, 2017, with 13 insurers registered and regularly using the system. The Madras High Court has issued comprehensive guidelines directing Motor Accident Claims Tribunals across Tamil Nadu to follow up on cases uploaded by police in the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS). Tamil Nadu's implementation is considered particularly effective with its digital infrastructure.

Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court has directed integration of the Police IT system with the integrated Road Accident Database/E-Detail Accident Report (E-DAR) on the Parivahan website set up by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The state faces implementation challenges, with investigating officers sometimes failing to forward First Accident Reports to Claims Tribunals as mandated under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act. To address these gaps, the Karnataka High Court has issued specific directions requiring the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Transport Department, Secretary of Health Department, and Secretary of e-Governance Department to implement the Central Motor Vehicles Amendment Rules of 2022. The court has emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act should be interpreted as beneficial legislation, and has criticized technical barriers that prevent accident victims from accessing compensation, particularly regarding limitation period issues when police fail to file timely reports.

Assam

The Gauhati High Court issued a notification on December 21, 2022, regarding the formulation of practices and procedures to be followed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State of Assam. Assam has published comprehensive victim rights information, including the right to copies of First Accident Report (FAR), Interim Accident Report (IAR), and Detailed Accident Report (DAR) in Form-VII, along with free legal aid from the State Legal Services Authority. The state has established a web portal listing all MAC Tribunals under Gauhati High Court jurisdiction and outlining the complete rights and documentation process for victims. However, implementation has faced funding challenges, with the Gauhati High Court directing the state government to release requisite funds under the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012, noting coordination issues between Home and Finance Departments that have delayed compensation disbursement to victims.

Motor Accident Claims as defined in International Instruments

The European Union has harmonized certain aspects of compensation for motor vehicle accidents through directives such as the Directive 2009/103/EC. This directive mandates that all motor vehicles be insured, sets up an efficient claims process for victims, and establishes a guarantee fund to cover victims when the responsible driver is unidentified or uninsured. Additionally, the EU ensures that victims can pursue claims in their home country if they are involved in accidents in other EU nations, making cross-border compensation more accessible.

International Experience

New Zealand

New Zealand is one of the most well-known proponents of a no-fault compensation system through its Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Under this system, any individual who suffers an injury, including motor vehicle accidents, is entitled to compensation regardless of who is at fault. The system covers a wide range of costs, including medical treatment, rehabilitation, loss of income, and in some cases, pain and suffering. The goal is to reduce the burden of legal proceedings on both the claimant and the insurer, allowing for quicker resolution and support for injured individuals.

Canada

Canada has implemented no-fault insurance schemes in several provinces, such as Ontario and Quebec. These systems allow accident victims to claim compensation directly from their own insurer without proving negligence. However, the right to sue for additional damages (for example, for pain and suffering) may still be available in certain cases, particularly if the injury is severe or permanent. Ontario’s system is based on a threshold test, where only those who suffer significant injuries are entitled to sue for non-economic damages. This strikes a balance between ensuring victims' access to compensation and reducing unnecessary litigation.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom operates primarily under a fault-based system. In cases where a person is injured in a motor accident, they must establish the negligence of the other party to claim compensation. The Road Traffic Act of 1988 provides a framework for compensating victims of road traffic accidents, and the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) plays a critical role in compensating victims when the at-fault driver is either unidentified or uninsured. Claimants must go through an insurance process, and if disputes arise, they can seek recourse through the civil courts.

Australia

In Australia, motor vehicle accident claims are governed by a mixture of both fault-based and no-fault systems, depending on the state or territory. For example, in New South Wales, the system is partially no-fault, allowing victims of motor accidents to claim certain benefits, such as medical expenses, regardless of fault. However, if the accident results in serious injury or death, the victim may pursue a fault-based claim against the responsible party for compensation beyond the basic benefits provided by no-fault insurance. Other states like Victoria follow a similar pattern, offering a hybrid model where victims can access immediate benefits without proof of fault but can later pursue a negligence claim.

Appearance of Motor Accident Claims in Databases

Case Types and Categories

Different Courts use different provisions to enlist Motor Accident Claims. The most common terminology is to classify them as MACT petition or MACP (Motor Accident Claims Petition).

National Judicial Data Grid

Under the NJDG, the Statistics for Motor Accident Claims petitions are given. The first image shows the petitions still pending while the second shows disposed off petitions.

Parliamentary Responses

LOK SABHA

The 2022 response from the Lok Sabha reveals that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways does not maintain data on fake or false motor accident claims. To address fraudulent claims and streamline processing, the government introduced the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) system with an eDAR portal for electronic submissions. A 2019 response indicates that while the National Judicial Data Grid tracks pending cases in courts, it doesn't maintain separate statistics specifically for accident compensation cases. Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) operate under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with states establishing them in consultation with High Courts.

Earlier responses from the late 1970s and 1980s show that India has long struggled with pending accident claim cases. In 1978, 92 cases were pending with tribunals, leading to the sanctioning of five additional tribunals to clear backlogs. By 1984, questions were raised about cases pending for over three years in Delhi, with officials noting delays in finalizing compensation claims. A 1995 response also addressed six pending cases with the National Insurance Company related to motor accident claims, showing the persistent nature of these delays. A 1906 response discussed delays in finalizing motor vehicle accident cases in Dhanbad, highlighting the geographic spread of this issue.

Road accident data from Delhi in a 1999 response showed around 10,000 accidents annually with approximately 2,000-2,300 deaths per year from 1997-1999, along with concerning statistics on hit-and-run cases and low conviction rates. Interestingly, a 1976 study by the Central Road Research Institute found that while the absolute number of road accidents increased by 7.4% annually between 1960 and 1972, the accident rate per thousand motor vehicles actually decreased from 91.7 to 65.9. Various safety measures were recommended over the years, including pedestrian infrastructure, cyclist safety provisions, mandatory helmets, and the establishment of National and State Road Safety Councils to coordinate safety initiatives across different levels of government.

RAJYA SABHA

A 1997 Rajya Sabha question regarding pending motor accident claims in Madras High Court received a non-specific answer, with officials stating information was being collected. A 2025 response explained that Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers states to establish Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, and detailed the procedural framework under Sections 166 and 168 for claim adjudication, requiring tribunals to deliver awards within 15 days and insurers to deposit awarded amounts within 30 days. A 1998 response acknowledged that the average settlement time for third-party death claims under MACT was around seven years, with delays attributed to court procedures and appeals, though no authentic data on pendency was available. A 2022 response revealed that the government notified the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund scheme in 2022 to provide enhanced compensation for accident victims, including cashless treatment during golden hour and relief for hit-and-run accidents, with compensation ranging from Rs. 12,500 to Rs. 2,00,000 depending on the severity of injury or death.