Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court urges MACTs to guide victims in choosing best remedy

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently made pertinent observations on the role of courts/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) in guiding victims of motor accident cases to opt for the most appropriate remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) [Mamta and Others v. Happy and Others]..Justice Sudeepti Sharma noted that victims or the representatives (claimants) are often unaware of their remedies and that it is their lawyers who decide which provision of the Act should be invoked to apply for compensation.Therefore, it is the bounden duty of courts/ motor accident tribunals to inform claimants of the provisions under which they could get maximum benefits or compensation, the High Court said.Notably, the Court made the observation while deciding whether "no-fault" claim petitions under Section 163A (which has now been replaced by Section 164 after a 2019 amendment) of the MV Act could be converted into petitions for compensation under Section 166 at the stage of appeal. Section 163A dealt with the grant of compensation based on a formula (involving factors such as the age of the victim, expenses, pain and suffering etc.) and on a no-fault basis, where it is difficult to prove that any one party was responsible for the motor accident.On the other hand, Section 166 of the MV Act is generally invoked where the claimant wishes to calculate compensation based on the negligence or wrongdoing of an opposing party. In a May 29 ruling, Justice Sharma held that appellate courts are empowered to allow the conversion of Section 163A claims to petitions under Section 166 of the MV Act. "The Appellate Court has power to convert the petition under Section 163A to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to give justice to the claimants," the Court said. .The Court proceeded to issue the following guidelines for MACTs to bear in mind so that claimants are better informed of which course to choose under the MV Act while seeking compensation:1. MACTs, while receiving applications for compensation (under Sections 140, 163A, 164 or 166) shall thoroughly appreciate the evidence and exercise their judicial discretion;2. The tribunals shall, before announcing the award, apprise the claimants of their right to seek compensation under the best available remedy to them under the MV Act;3. Even if the claim petition was filed on a no-fault basis (under Sections 140 or 163A; or Section 164 after the 2019 amendment), if the tribunal finds that negligence is established, the tribunal should (before passing an award) advice the claimant, in the interest of justice, to opt for the remedy under Section 166. 4. A claim under Section 164 of the MV Act (introduced by the 2019 amendment) can also be converted to a claim under Section 166, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence led by the parties.5. A judge should not go into the technicalities of provisions but should apply his judicial mind since these (matters of converting one form of motor accident claim to another) are only irregularities and not incurable illegalities. The court should make every effort to exercise its discretion empathetically.6. Justice should be shown to be delivered by an application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The court's decision should be such that they strengthen the trust and confidence of the public and litigants in the judicial system and judiciary..The Court passed the ruling on a plea seeking enhancement of compensation in a motor accident case. In 2005, the MACT awarded the claimants around ₹4.17 lakhs as compensation on an application filed by them under Section 163A of the MV Act. On appeal, the counsel for the claimants made an oral request to treat their claim as an application under Section 166 of the MV Act instead. The claimants added that the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of a vehicle. After analysing the facts of the case, the High Court acceded to their request to treat the claim as a petition under Section 166.“The evidence led by the appellant/claimant shows that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and there is no rebuttal to the same ... Therefore, in view of the above, appellants are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988," the Court reasoned. The Court proceeded to find that the claimants were entitled to an enhanced compensation of around ₹4.53 lakhs. .Advocate Ekta Thakur appeared for the claimants, while advocates Paul S Saini and Vipul Sharma appeared for an insurance company. .[Read Judgment]