Indian legal system is vast and large. It has the biggest constitution and regulates people in every sector. In today’s life we come across many accidents, which has caused a loss or trauma in one’s family. Accidents are inevitable, it is an everyday happening where hundreds of people are dying which cannot be avoided. This is because of the lack of knowledge and money are the factors of this situation in country. Misbehavior and violation of rules in road are the major reason that leads to loss of other.

In India, The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019 is the remedy for the accident victims and their families because it regulates all the aspects of road transport and motor vehicles including aspects like-

• Licensing of drivers
• Registration of motor vehicles
• Liability to pay compensation
• Insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks
• Covers the concept of Hit and Run cases
• Claims tribunal, etc.

KINDS OF COMPENSATION

NO FAULT LIABILTY

Chapter X of the act deals with the Liability without fault in certain cases (no fault liability)i.e. compensation for victims in certain cases on the principal of no fault. Section 140 of the Act stipulates the principal of no liability. According to this section, where death or any permanent disablement of any person has resulted from accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles then the owner of vehicle or vehicles jointly and severally ,be liable to pay compensation to the victim in respect of death or permanent disablement.

Under section 140(2), the compensation which shall be payable for death is 50000 rupees and the amount of compensation for partial disablement of any person shall be fixed amount of 25000 rupees.

The Doctrine of Strict Liability propounded in Reynolds v Fletcher were considered by constitutional bench of supreme court in M.C.Mehta v Union of India.1987(1)SCC395.

The Constitutional Bench in M.C Mehta has held as follows :

 “In view of fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, the motor vehicles upon the roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands Vs Fletcher. From the point of view of the pedestrian, the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of the motor vehicles highly dangerous. Hit and run cases where the drivers of the motor vehicles who have caused the accidents are not known are increasing in number. When a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist whether throughout the world to make the liability for damages arising out of motor vehicles accidents as a liability without fault.”

HIT AND RUN CASES

Such cases are regulated under section 161 of chapter XII of the motor vehicles act 1988, Hit and Run is defined as an “accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle(s) the identity whereof cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose

According to section 163 (3), the compensation for the hit and run case are made. The recent amendment in 2019 has changed regulation and fines. Thus compensation is

The license of the owner of the vehicle is cancelled with hefty fines and imprisonments as legal consequences of hit and run cases.

In this recent case Laxmi Devi Surna v Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, the appellants cannot claim compensation because the appellants hit a stationary truck on seeing a truck on opposite road. The definition of Hit and run cases is self-evident and hence the claimant cannot get compensation because it’s an act of negligence of the insured car driver and not a hit and run case

STRUCTURED FORMULA BASIS

A special provision was inserted in the earlier amendment in 1994 which is 163A, In recent act this basis of claim of compensation was removed, under this section the claimant does not have to prove the fault of the drive and thus the owner of the motor vehicle is held liable to pay compensation in case of death and partial disablement, as per the indication of second schedule to the legal heir or the victims as may be

The apex court in Oriental Insurance Co. v Hansrajbhai 2001 (2) KLT (SC) has explained the need for section 163A as follows:

“In this context if we refer to the Review Committee’s report, the reason for enacting Section 163A is to give earliest relief to the victims of the motor vehicle accidents. The Committee observed that determination of cases takes a long time and, therefore, under a system of structural compensation, the compensation that is payable for different classes of cases depending upon the age of the deceased, the monthly income at the time of death, the earning potential in the case of a minor, loss of income on account of loss of limb etc. can be notified and the affected party can then have option of their accepting lump sum compensation under the Scheme of structural compensation or of pursuing his claim through the normal channels…..

As per the objects and reasons, it is a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational. On the basis of the said recommendation after considering the report of the Transport Development Council, the Bill was introduced with “a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational” i.e. Section 163A. It is also apparent that compensation payable under Section 163 A is almost based on relevant criteria for determining the compensation such as annual income, age of the victim and multiplier to be applied….