'Average Pendency Of 6 Yrs In MACTs' : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Expedite Motor Accident Compensation Claims

Expressing concern over chronic delays in motor accident compensation cases across the country, the Supreme Court has issued a series of directions aimed at expediting proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and High Courts.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice A.G. Masih noted that an analysis of over a hundred motor accident compensation cases decided by the Supreme Court revealed that the average pendency before Claims Tribunals was approximately six years, while appeals remained pending in High Courts for around eight years.

"The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to state the obvious, is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing just and fair compensation. Both of these salutary values are denuded by long pendency," the Court observed.

The Court said that delays at the Tribunal level are often caused by claim petitions being filed without supporting documents, resulting in repeated adjournments for production of evidence. To address this, it directed that claimants must, wherever applicable, furnish relevant documents along with their claim petitions.

The Bench specified that proof of age, excluding Aadhaar cards, must be filed in all cases since age is a crucial factor in determining compensation. In disability claims, certificates issued by competent doctors recording the percentage of disability and the extent of functional disability must be produced. Where a particular income is claimed, supporting documents such as income tax returns, salary slips, or employer-issued salary certificates under stamp and seal must be annexed. Medical expense claims must be backed by duly attested bills from hospitals or clinics, while claims for attendant charges should be accompanied by a notarised affidavit disclosing the attendant's salary.

Highlighting the alarming pendency in appellate courts, the Supreme Court requested Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure that long-pending MACT appeals are listed in order of their age. The Court suggested that cases pending for more than four years should receive priority, with the oldest matters being listed first.

"For clarity, it may be stated that if matter 'a' has been pending for eight and a half years and 'b' has been pending for four years, 'a' will be listed first," the Bench said.

The Court also requested Chief Justices to assess whether additional benches dealing with MACT compensation matters are required in their respective High Courts in view of the pendency.

At the Tribunal level, the Court stressed the need for greater use of the summary procedure contemplated under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While acknowledging that adoption of a summary procedure is not mandatory, the Bench said Tribunals should record reasons if they choose not to adopt it.

"It would be in the favour of expediency if reasons are recorded by the Tribunals for not choosing to adopt such procedure. If it is adopted where possible it would go a long way in ensuring that the deserved compensation reaches the claimants as soon as possible," the Court observed, directing strict enforcement of the requirement.

The directions were issued in an appeal in which the Court also expressed concern over the prolonged delay faced by compensation claimants and emphasised the need for systemic reforms to ensure timely delivery of relief under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court noted that the appeal had been filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2004 but was decided only at the end of 2024. While acknowledging that the delay was partly attributable to a fire in 2011 that destroyed or damaged thousands of court records, the Bench said the circumstances raised troubling questions about institutional delay.

"It appears from the perusal of records of the High Court that the file of this case amongst thousands of others was either partially burnt or completely destroyed in a fire that occurred in 2011," the Court noted.

Referring to administrative efforts to reconstruct destroyed files, the Bench observed that a February 2024 order of the High Court recorded that nearly 2,200 cases whose records could not be traced had been removed from the list of pending reconstruction matters and placed in a separate category awaiting intervention by counsel.

Questioning the extraordinary delay, the Court remarked:

"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 emphasised that such delays reflect on institutions entrusted with adjudicating rights and observed that the suffering of claimants is aggravated when compensation claims remain unresolved for decades.

"Although it is never possible to fully compensate for the loss of a person who has been an integral part of a person's family, the idea of 'just and fair' compensation requires that an amount of money be paid to the claimants that would, as far as possible, place them in a position as if the unfortunate incident of the death of their loved one had not taken place. For whatever reason, when this takes twenty years, the suffering is only compounded further," the Bench observed.

To assess the extent of the problem, the Bench examined more than one hundred MACT appeals decided by Supreme Court Benches headed by Justice Karol. The analysis revealed that the average pendency before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals was approximately six years, while appeals remained pending in High Courts for about eight years.

Calling the situation "an unhappy picture", the Court observed that in nearly half the cases examined, pendency before High Courts exceeded four years. It stressed that courts must remain vigilant in preventing delays and noted that in many cases, the interest accrued during the pendency period becomes a substantial percentage of the compensation itself.

Also from the judgment - 'Homemakers Are Nation Builders' : Supreme Court Quantifies Homemaker Contribution As Rs 30K Per Month In Motor Accident Claims