Tuesday, 31 May 2016

Landmark judgment of Supreme court revolutionizing MACT Cases


The learned counsel submitted that in respect of the
legislative changes suggested in the judgment rendered in Jai
Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported
in (2010) 2 SCC 607, there is a Bill already introduced for
amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act and that it is currently
pending before the Parliament for consideration. Barring that, one
other aspect which required to be dealt with immediately by way of
suggestion to the Insurance Councils is in paragraph 23, which
reads as under:-
“23. In cases of death, where the liability of
the insurer is not disputed, the insurance
companies should, without waiting for the
decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
or a settlement before the Lok Adalat,
endeavour to pay to the family (legal
representatives) of the deceased, compensation
as per the standard formula determined by the
decisions of this Court.”
Insofar as the said suggestion is concerned, learned Solicitor
General drew our attention to the response filed before us on
behalf of the General Insurance Council, in particular paragraph 4,
which states that presently the procedure suggested in Paragraph 23
is being followed by the Insurance Companies in Delhi by way of a
Scheme called “Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure” which was
formulated by the Delhi High Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2009
passed in FAO No.843 of 2003 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh& Ors. It is also mentioned therein that Tribunal
 as well as the
Legal Service Authority are taking effective steps to implement the
said procedure, which is being carried out in the National Capital
Territory of Delhi. In paragraph 5, it is further submitted that
since this procedure has been successful in Delhi it can be
extended on pan India basis. The agreed procedure has also been
filed as Annexure R5 with the response filed on behalf of the
General Insurance Council.
We have also perused the procedure, which has been placed
before us as Annexure R5 with the response which, in our view,
appears to be a comprehensive one and that we can issue further
directions to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to
ensure that procedure is strictly followed insofar as Delhi is
concerned and also circulate the said procedure to all the other
High Courts and the Registrar General of all the other High Courts
are directed to ensure that the said procedure is implemented
through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in coordination with
the Legal Service Authorities as well as the Director General of
Police of the States concerned.
 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.11801-11804/2005
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07/12/2004
in FAO No. 4845/2003 07/12/2004 in FAO No. 4846/2003 07/12/2004 in
FAO No. 4847/2003 07/12/2004 in FAO No. 4848/2003 passed by the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
JAI PRAKASH Petitioner(s)
 VERSUS
M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(For Final Disposal)
Date : 13/05/2016 
CORAM :
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE




Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India and
Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel appearing as Amicus
Curiae.
The learned counsel submitted that in respect of the
legislative changes suggested in the judgment rendered in Jai
Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported
in (2010) 2 SCC 607, there is a Bill already introduced for
amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act and that it is currently
pending before the Parliament for consideration. Barring that, one
other aspect which required to be dealt with immediately by way of
suggestion to the Insurance Councils is in paragraph 23, which
reads as under:-
“23. In cases of death, where the liability of
the insurer is not disputed, the insurance
companies should, without waiting for the
decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
or a settlement before the Lok Adalat,
endeavour to pay to the family (legal
representatives) of the deceased, compensation
as per the standard formula determined by the
decisions of this Court.”
Insofar as the said suggestion is concerned, learned Solicitor
General drew our attention to the response filed before us on
behalf of the General Insurance Council, in particular paragraph 4,
which states that presently the procedure suggested in Paragraph 23
is being followed by the Insurance Companies in Delhi by way of a
Scheme called “Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure” which was
formulated by the Delhi High Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2009
passed in FAO No.843 of 2003 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh& Ors. It is also mentioned therein that Tribunal
 as well as the
Legal Service Authority are taking effective steps to implement the
said procedure, which is being carried out in the National Capital
Territory of Delhi. In paragraph 5, it is further submitted that
since this procedure has been successful in Delhi it can be
extended on pan India basis. The agreed procedure has also been
filed as Annexure R5 with the response filed on behalf of the
General Insurance Council.
We have also perused the procedure, which has been placed
before us as Annexure R5 with the response which, in our view,
appears to be a comprehensive one and that we can issue further
directions to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to
ensure that procedure is strictly followed insofar as Delhi is
concerned and also circulate the said procedure to all the other
High Courts and the Registrar General of all the other High Courts
are directed to ensure that the said procedure is implemented
through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in coordination with
the Legal Service Authorities as well as the Director General of
Police of the States concerned.
The Registry of the Supreme Court is directed to forward a
copy of this order along with Annexure R5 (pages 32 to 46 in the
response filed on behalf of the General Insurance Council) to all
the High Courts including the Delhi High Court to ensure compliance
of the present order.
On the remaining aspects, we will make further consideration
after reopening on 12.07.2016.

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment