Motor Accident Claims — MACT

The 2019 Amendment re-inserted Section 166(3), which says no application for compensation shall be entertained unless made within six months of the accident; this came into force w.e.f. 1 April 2022. Unlike the pre-1994 provision, it carries no express power to condone delay. Its constitutional validity is under challenge before the Supreme Court (Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India), and by an interim order Tribunals and High Courts have been directed not to dismiss claims as time-barred until the matter is decided; several High Courts have also applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay on sufficient cause. Practical advice: file as early as possible — delay weakens the case and evidence may be lost.

In Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the SC settled the multiplier method: Net annual income = Annual income minus 1/3rd for personal expenses (if married with dependants). Compensation = Net income × Age-based multiplier. Multiplier table: age 25-30 — 17; age 36-40 — 15; age 40-45 — 14; age 50-55 — 11; age 55-60 — 9. To this, add future prospects (Pranay Sethi 2017: +40% below 40 yrs, +25% for 40-50 yrs, +10% for 50-60 yrs (self-employed; salaried +50% / +30% / +15%)) and non-pecuniary heads.

Future prospects represent the expected increase in the person's income over their working life — career growth, promotions, inflation. Pranay Sethi Constitution Bench (2017): below 40 years — +40% of income; 40-50 years — +25%; 50-60 years — +10%; above 60 years — Nil. These figures are the self-employed/fixed-wage scale; for a salaried, permanent-job victim the additions are higher — +50% (below 40), +30% (40–50), +15% (50–60). The future prospects amount is added to the income before applying the multiplier — significantly increasing the total compensation. These are mandatory minimums — courts cannot award less without reasons.

Yes — Section 161 MV Act (2019 Amendment): Death — ₹2 lakh from Solatium Fund; Grievous hurt — ₹50,000. Application to the Claims Enquiry Officer (police). The claimant need only prove a motor vehicle caused the accident and fled — not the identity of the vehicle. Separate from and in addition to a full fault-based claim if the vehicle is later identified. Hit-and-run drivers face imprisonment up to 10 years under BNS Section 106(2) (a provision currently deferred from immediate enforcement).

Contributory negligence means the victim was partly responsible for the accident — crossing the road without looking, riding without a helmet, riding rashly. If MACT finds contributory negligence — total compensation is reduced proportionately. Example: total compensation ₹20 lakh, victim's contributory negligence 25% — final award ₹15 lakh. Importantly, no-fault compensation under Section 164 is NOT affected by contributory negligence — the ₹5 lakh / ₹2.5 lakh is payable regardless.

The vehicle owner is personally liable. MACT still passes the award against both the owner and the driver. The victim is entitled to compensation regardless of whether the vehicle was insured. In National Insurance Co. v. Swaran Singh (2004 SC), a three-Judge Bench settled that lack of insurance does not defeat the victim's right to compensation. The insurer may pay in some cases and recover from the owner. If the owner is insolvent, the Motor Insurance Insolvency Fund (MIIF) or the state steps in.

In a fatal accident — the claimants are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased: spouse, children (including adult children who were dependent), parents, and any other person financially dependent on the deceased. In an injury accident — the injured person himself/herself is the claimant — for medical expenses, disability, loss of income, pain and suffering. Multiple family members can file a single joint petition. The compensation award is distributed among all claimants based on their dependency and relationship to the deceased.

For a housewife or non-earning person — the SC in Indira Srivastava (2008) held that notional income must be assigned based on the value of services rendered. The 2019 MV Amendment suggests using minimum wages as the benchmark. Courts apply state minimum wages as notional income. Future prospects are then added (Pranay Sethi: +40% if below 40 years for self-employed; +50% if salaried), and the Sarla Verma multiplier is applied. Non-pecuniary heads — pain, suffering, consortium — are also awarded separately.

Yes — motor accident cases are among the most common matters at Lok Adalat. Advantages: immediate payment by the insurer; no court fees; no appeal possible after settlement; significant time and cost savings. MACT itself conducts Motor Accident Lok Adalats periodically — insurance companies participate actively. Settlement amounts are typically fair — often close to what a tribunal would award. Strongly recommended for routine cases to avoid years of litigation.

Yes — when a minor is among the claimants, MACT directs that the minor's share be invested in a Fixed Deposit (FDR) in a nationalised bank until the minor attains majority (18 years). Interest on the FDR is available for the minor's maintenance and education — operated by the natural guardian or a court-appointed guardian. On attaining 18 years, the FDR can be broken and the amount given to the now-adult claimant. This protects the minor's compensation from being misused.