AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Y.K. Sabhanval, J.
(1) During the pendency of the writ petition the Courts of Mact have since been encoder in judicial service. In this view these Courts would be under the direct supervisory power of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India.
(2) In this public interest writ petition the grievance is regarding the working of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) in Delhi. According to the petitioner, the constitutional rights enshrined under Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of the family members of the victims and those who suffer serious permanent disability are being violated because of lack of proper functioning of these Tribunals.
(3) As directed by this Court reports have been sent giving the details of pendency of cases before different Tribunals and details about the disposal of the cases by the Tribunals. Considering the large pendency of the cases, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Innder Mohan v. Union of India etc., CWP. 2646/82 decided on 8th May, 1984 wherein directions were issued for constitution of one Industrial Tribunal and two Labour Courts, submits that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to constitute more number of the Tribunals to deal with cases of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(4) Having considered the matter, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if the details of pendency are examined by the High Court on Administrative Side and appropriate decision taken on the question of constitution of more Tribunals for which purpose various factors will have to be kept in view. The pendency of the number of cases; number of cases decided every month; the availability of judicial office''s; the infrastructure that can be made available and numerous such matters will have to be examined while taking decision on the question of constitution of additional Tribunals. The aspect of long dates given by the Tribunals is, of course, be one of the aspects, which is intimately connected with number of the cases pending and would be taken into consideration. Undoubtedly the public is suffering immensely because of long delays particularly in these matters. We have no doubt that the High Court will decide this matter expeditiously.
(5) Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. The amount of compensation payable u/s 140 in case of death of any person is Rs. 50,000.00 ''and in respect of permanent disablement it is Rs. 25.000.00 . The enquiry for determining no fault liability to be conducted by the Tribunal is summary in nature. The main object behind enacting this provision is to provide immediate relief to the family members of the deceased or person who may have suffered permanent disability. That is the reason for Section 141, inter alia, providing that claim for compensation u/s 140 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
(6) It has been brought to our notice that even disposal of claims u/s 140 takes considerable time.
(7) Having regard to the laudable object in enacting Sections 140 and 141, we have no doubt that the officers must be trying their best to expeditiously dispose of such interim claims and applications though, of course, keeping in view the work load with the MACT''s. We, however, feel that this Court, at a glance, should know the time taken by the Tribunals for deciding these interim claim applications. Accordingly, we direct the Registrar of this Court to issue direction to Presiding Officers of the Tribunals requiring them to send quarterly returns in respect of disposal of the applications u/s 140, giving details of the month of filing of the applications and the month of decision thereof and reasons, if any, for delay of disposal of such applications. The returns so filed shall be placed before learned Inspecting Judges of the President Officers of the Tribunals.
(8) Mr. Aggarwal has also brought to our notice the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 158. The said provision stipulates that as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a Police Officer, the Officer in charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer.
(9) SUB-SECTION (4) of Section 166 provides that the Claims Tribunals shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application torn compensation under this Act. Learned Counsel submits that he has learnt that no report u/s 158(6) has ever been submitted to the Tribunals even though Subsection (6) of Section 158 was brought on the statute book nearly three years ago. We would examine this aspect only after receipt of a report from the Commissioner of Police as to whether such reports have been sent or not. Let a copy of this order be sent to Commissioner of Police. Ms. Ahlawat will obtain requisite particulars from the Commissioner of Police/Police Department and file an affidavit on this aspect within three weeks.
(10) A copy of this order shall be sent forthwith to the Registrar of this Court for compliance. A copy of this order be also given dusty to Counsel for the parties. List for further proceedings on 15th December, 1997.