Login
Subscribe

MACT: Directions issued for Compensation in Hit and Run Cases

Picture of Stpl law

Stpl law

The question of issuing interim directions for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) relating to the grant of compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents. (Para 1)

We issue the following directions, which will operate till further orders, which can be modified after looking at the compliance made by the Standing Committee

a) If the particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident are not available at the time of registration of the report regarding the accident by the jurisdictional Police Station and if, after making reasonable efforts, the particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident could not be ascertained by the Police within a period of one month from the date of registration of accident report, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall inform in writing to the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be, that compensation can be claimed under the Scheme. The contact details such as e-mail ID and office address of the jurisdictional Claims Enquiry Officer shall be provided by the Police to the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be;

b) The officer in charge of the Police Station, within one month from the date of the accident, shall forward the FAR to the Claims Enquiry Officer as provided in sub-clause (1) of clause 21 of the Scheme. While forwarding a copy of the said report, the names of the victims in case of injury and the names of the legal representatives of the deceased victim (if available with the Police Station) shall also be forwarded to the jurisdictional Claims Enquiry Officer, who shall cause the same to be entered in a separate register. After receipt of the FAR and other particulars as aforesaid by the Claims Enquiry Officer, if the claim application is not received within one month, the information shall be provided by the Claims Enquiry Officer to the concerned District Legal Service Authority with a request to the said authority to contact the claimants and assist them in filing the claim applications;

c) A Monitoring Committee shall be constituted at every district level consisting of the Secretary of the District Legal Service Authority, the Claims Enquiry Officer of the district or, if there is more than one, the Claim Enquiry Officer nominated by the State Government, and a police officer not below the level of Deputy Superintendent of Police as may be nominated by the District Superintendent of Police. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority shall be the Convener of the Monitoring Committee. The Committee shall meet at least once in every two months to monitor the implementation of the Scheme in the district and the compliance with the aforesaid directions;

d) The Claims Enquiry Officer shall ensure that a report containing his recommendation and other documents are forwarded to the Claim Settlement Commissioner within one month from receipt of the claim application duly filled in;

e) The Registry of this Court shall forward a copy of this order to the Member Secretaries of the Legal Services Authorities of each State and Union Territories. The Member Secretaries shall, in turn, forward the copies of this order to the Secretaries of each District Legal Services Authorities within its jurisdiction. After receipt of the copies of this order, the Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authorities shall take steps to form the Monitoring Committees for their respective districts and

f) The Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authorities shall submit quarterly reports on the functioning of the Monitoring Committees to the Member Secretaries of the respective Legal Services Authorities of the State or the Union Territories, as the case may be. The Member Secretaries shall collate the reports submitted by all districts and forward a comprehensive report to the Registry of this Court. (Para 9)

Sub-section (2) of Section 161 of MV Act provides that in case of death of any person resulting from hit and run motor accident, a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs or such higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government shall be paid. In case of grievous injury, the compensation amount is Rs. 50 thousand. The value of money diminishes with time. We direct the Central Government to consider whether the compensation amounts can be gradually enhanced annually. The Central Government shall take an appropriate decision on this issue within eight weeks from today. (Para 10)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2024 STPL(Web) 35 SC

[2024 INSC 37]

Rajaseekaran Vs. Union Of India & Ors.

I.A. No.71387 of 2023 in writ petition (c) no. 295 of 2012-Decided on 12-1-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-STPLWeb-35-SC.pdf

Share
Next Story

Consumer

September 7, 2025 No Comments
Next Story

Contract: Demurrage not allowed

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Demurrage – Contractual Liability – Liquidated Damages – Breach of Contract – Adjudication of Claims – The petitioner, engaged in transportation business, participated in a competitive bidding process and was awarded a transportation contract by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Dispute arose when FCI began deducting demurrage charges from petitioner’s bills for alleged delay in unloading wagons, despite petitioner not being responsible for wagon unloading.

The petitioner contested the deduction, arguing that as per the contract, demurrage cannot be unilaterally imposed by FCI unless liability is determined through due process of law.

The Court examined the relevant contract clause, which allowed FCI to recover costs, damages, etc., due to contractor’s negligence, but found it did not specifically authorize demurrage deduction.

Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Food Corporation of India vs. Abhijit Paul, the Court held that demurrage could not be levied on the petitioner as the contract did not assign the task of wagon unloading to them.

The absence of a liquidated damages clause in the contract further supported the Court’s decision. The Court directed FCI to refund the deducted demurrage amount and refrain from further deductions, unless liability is determined through lawful adjudication.The order did not prevent FCI from seeking damages through proper legal channels. (Para 12, 15, 18, 22)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 184 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1652 Gauhati]

Hi Speed Logistics Pvt Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation Of India And 5 Ors.

WP(C) 6317 of 2022-Decided on 8-11-2023

Share
Next Story

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 145, 146- Breach of peace – Emergency situation – Possession dispute – Civil litigation – Non-application of mind – Proceeding under Section 145 – Attachment under Section 146 – The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenges the orders by the Executive Magistrate, concerning a dispute under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequent attachment under Section 146(1) of the same.

The petitioner contests the legality of both orders, asserting that the initiation of the proceeding and the attachment were illegal and an abuse of process. It’s argued that the jurisdiction under Section 145 can only be invoked if there’s a likelihood of a breach of peace, which wasn’t sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

The petitioner highlights that the attachment order was passed ex-parte without affording them an opportunity to respond, which is contrary to the exceptional circumstances required for such an order. Reference is made to legal precedent discouraging parallel criminal proceedings when a civil litigation is pending regarding property possession, emphasizing the binding nature of civil court decrees.

The respondents counter by claiming entitlement to the land based on a partition deed and subsequent court judgments. They argue that emergency circumstances justified the attachment due to the petitioner’s attempt to construct on disputed land.

Legal precedents are cited to emphasize that the existence of an emergency, not just the use of the term “emergency,” warrants attachment under Section 146.

The judgment critically examines the orders and the circumstances leading to them. It observes discrepancies between the assertions made in the complaint and police report, highlighting the absence of clear grounds for apprehension of breach of peace.The judgment reiterates the requirement for a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace under Section 145, emphasizing that it must disturb public order, not just personal peace.

It concludes that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and jurisdictional error, resulting in injustice to the petitioner. Consequently, both orders are quashed, and the petition is allowed. Important Paragraph Numbers of Judgment: (Para 13, 19, 30, 31)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 183 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1651 Gauhati]

Md. Osman Ali Saikia And Anr. Vs. Chand Mahamod Saikia And 2 Ors.

Crl.Pet. 239 of 2021-Decided on 8-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-183-Gauhati.pdf

 

Share
Next Story

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 43, 49, 50, 56 – Electricity – Outstanding arrears from previous owner – The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a decision by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to deny a new electricity connection to their premises due to outstanding arrears from previous electricity bills.

The court directed interim relief for immediate electricity connection, subject to 50% payment of outstanding dues, with the remaining 50% to be paid upon dismissal of the writ petition.

The petitioner participated in an auction sale of a property and purchased a portion of land with a Business Centre cum Market Complex. They subsequently applied for a new electricity connection, which was denied by APDCL citing outstanding dues.

The court referred to the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 and the Electricity Act, 2003. It cited a Supreme Court decision (K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board) regarding the liability of auction purchasers for previous dues in properties sold on ‘as is where is’ basis.

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the petitioner liable for outstanding electricity dues as per the auction sale agreement. It directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues as per the interim order, with APDCL waiving the accrued interest on the principal dues. (Para 15, 16)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1650 Gauhati]

M/S Borah And Companyjiban Phukan Nagar Vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 989 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

Share

Recent Articles