On Thursday, the Supreme Court voiced serious concern over the prolonged delays faced by accident victims and their families in securing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and issued a series of directions aimed at accelerating proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and High Courts across the country. Noting that compensation disputes are routinely taking years to conclude despite being part of a welfare-oriented legislation, the Court emphasized that delayed adjudication undermines the very purpose of providing timely and meaningful relief to victims of motor accidents.
The issue came before the Court in an appeal arising from a compensation claim that had remained pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for nearly two decades. While examining the matter, the Bench reviewed a large number of motor accident compensation cases decided by the Apex Court and found a troubling pattern of delay. The analysis revealed that claim petitions before MACTs were taking an average of six years to conclude, while appeals before High Courts remained pending for nearly 8 years. The Court observed that repeated adjournments often stemmed from claim petitions being filed without essential supporting documents. To address this, it directed that claimants should furnish relevant records at the time of filing, including proof of age, disability certificates where applicable, documents establishing income, medical bills, and evidence supporting attendant charges. The Bench also turned its attention to the growing backlog in Appellate Courts and requested Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure that long-pending MACT appeals are listed according to their age, with older matters receiving priority consideration.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh expressed deep concern over the systemic delays plaguing motor accident compensation proceedings and observed that such delays strike at the very foundation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is intended to provide prompt and equitable relief to victims and their families. The Court noted that compensation awarded years after an accident often fails to serve its intended purpose, as prolonged litigation compounds the hardship already suffered by claimants.
After examining more than a hundred MACT matters that had reached the Apex Court, the Bench found that claim petitions before MACT remained pending for an average of 6 years, while appeals before High Courts took nearly 8 years to conclude. The Court remarked that this painted “an unhappy picture” of the state of motor accident compensation litigation across the country. It observed that in many cases, the interest accumulated during years of pendency constituted a significant portion of the final compensation itself, highlighting the extent of institutional delay.
The Bench identified several factors contributing to the backlog. It found that claim petitions were frequently filed without essential supporting documents, forcing tribunals to grant repeated adjournments for the production of evidence. To address this recurring issue, the Court directed that claimants should, wherever applicable, file relevant documents along with their petitions. The Court specifically stressed the importance of proof of age, disability certificates indicating the extent of functional disability, documentary evidence of income, authenticated medical bills, and proof supporting claims for attendant charges.
The Court also focused on delays at the Appellate stage and requested the Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure that pending MACT appeals are listed strictly according to their age. It suggested that matters pending for more than four years should receive priority and clarified that older cases must be taken up before comparatively newer ones. The Bench further requested High Courts to examine whether additional benches dedicated to motor accident compensation cases were necessary to deal with mounting pendency.
Emphasising procedural efficiency, the Court highlighted the summary procedure contemplated under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While acknowledging that adoption of the summary procedure is not mandatory, the Bench observed that tribunals should record reasons whenever they choose not to adopt it. The Court noted that wider use of such a procedure could significantly reduce delays and ensure that deserving claimants receive compensation without unnecessary litigation.
The Bench was particularly troubled by the facts of the case before it, where an appeal filed in 2004 was decided only towards the end of 2024. Although the Court took note of a fire in 2011 that damaged or destroyed numerous court records, it questioned whether such circumstances could justify the extraordinary delay that followed. Raising concerns over institutional inefficiencies, the Court observed, “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. Naturally, two questions arise, one why was the case arising out of a beneficial legislation remained pending in 2011 when it was filed in 2004? Two, still further, between 2011 and 2024 is a period of 14 years – does the reconstruction of a file or number of files, takes 14 years?”
The Court further emphasised that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can never truly replace the loss suffered by victims and their families. However, the law seeks to place claimants, as far as possible, in the position they would have occupied had the accident not occurred. According to the Bench, when compensation claims remain unresolved for decades, the suffering of affected families is only intensified. It therefore stressed that courts must remain vigilant in preventing delays and ensuring that the beneficial object of the legislation is not defeated by procedural inefficiencies.
Consequently, the Apex Court issued a series of directions aimed at streamlining claim proceedings, improving documentation at the filing stage, prioritising old appeals, encouraging use of summary procedures, and enabling High Courts to assess the need for additional benches to handle MACT matters.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :