#Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation awarded under Section 357(3) CrPC for pain and suffering cannot be set off against MACT awards for loss of dependency, as they compensate different heads of loss. It directed that the criminal compensation amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending the outcome of the criminal appeal, benefitting victims' families by preserving both recoveries.

United India Insurance was ordered to pay the entire Rs 67.12 lakh compensation with interest after the Gauhati High Court ruled that contributory negligence must be proved by evidence and cannot be inferred. The judgment underscores that insurers cannot rely on a presumption of driver fault in motor accident claims. Claimants and insurers alike must base any reduction in award on concrete proof of negligence.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court raised the compensation for a 2002 motor-vehicle fatality, directing that loss of dependency, future income and other conventional heads be quantified on realistic actuarial assumptions. This clarifies how Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be applied when enhancing awards, benefiting claimants seeking higher damages from insurers.

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules insurers cannot escape Motor Vehicles Act liability without proving breach of insurance terms, shifting the burden to prove unauthorized passenger status. The ruling strengthens claimants' rights in fatal accident compensation disputes under Section 166.

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) directs insurers to first compensate passengers injured in goods carriage accidents under Section 166 MV Act before pursuing recovery from vehicle owners. The ruling clarifies liability thresholds for insurers in passenger claims involving non-commercial goods vehicles.

Bombay High Court enhances motor accident compensation from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 83,275, correcting factual errors in salary loss calculation and awarding disability lump sum.

Bombay High Court rules that the 2022 amendment to Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which bars appeals for awards below Rs. 1 lakh, applies to pending appeals filed before the amendment. The decision impacts insurers and claimants by dismissing appeals involving smaller compensation amounts, even if filed prior to the amendment.

Bombay High Court revises compensation norms in fatal motor accident cases, establishing Rs. 30,000 as notional annual income for deceased graduates assisting in family businesses and awarding Rs. 48,000 consortium per dependent. The ruling reduces personal expense deduction to 1/2 for bachelors with unmarried siblings, impacting future claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

MP High Court enhances compensation from Rs. 3.4 lakh to Rs. 7.97 lakh by applying the Minimum Wages Act's Rs. 4,545/month benchmark for deceased unskilled laborers, reinforcing future prospects and filial consortium under Pranay Sethi. The ruling sets a precedent for tribunals to avoid underestimating dependency loss in fatal accident claims.

Bombay High Court enhances compensation for a minor in prolonged coma from Rs. 7.04 lakhs to Rs. 44.34 lakhs, recognizing daily medical expenses and loss of consortium. The ruling establishes a benchmark for future claims involving extended vegetative states under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that dependency claims of parents and siblings under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be dismissed merely for non-appearance as witnesses if their dependency is pleaded and remains unrebutted. The Court modified the MACT award to include the deceased's parents and sister as dependents, reinforcing that compensation must align with pleaded facts and evidence, not procedural defaults.

Allahabad HC rules that compelling major adult claimants to invest motor accident compensation in fixed deposits violates their right to immediate access. The court directed full release of funds with accrued interest, reinforcing autonomy over compensation awards.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that denying cross-examination of witnesses in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceeding due to pandemic-related delays violates natural justice and renders the award void. This sets a critical precedent: procedural fairness in compensation cases cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience, even during emergencies, affecting claimants, insurers, and tribunals nationwide.

The Karnataka High Court has directed Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to continue hearing claim petitions filed after the six-month limitation period under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, but strictly prohibited them from issuing final awards until the Supreme Court resolves the maintainability question in SLPs 8412-8413/2023. This interim framework protects claimants' access to justice while preserving the Supreme Court's ultimate authority on statutory limitation, affecting insurers, victims, and tribunals nationwide.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that claimants may amend their motor accident compensation petition from a fault-based claim under Section 166 to a no-fault claim under Section 163-A even after evidence closure and during final arguments. This reinforces the welfare-oriented purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring victims’ families are not penalized for technical pleading errors at the last stage of litigation.