BrahMos WORLD INDIA MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL WTN SPECIAL GOSSIP CORNER RELIGION SPORTS BUSINESS FUN FACTS ENTERTAINMENT LIFESTYLE TRAVEL ART & LITERATURE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY HEALTH EDUCATION DIASPORA OPINION & INTERVIEW RECIPES DRINKS BIG MEMSAAB 2017 BUDGET 2017 FUNNY VIDEOS VIRAL ON WEB PICTURE STORIES Mahakal Ke Darshan
WTN HINDI ABOUT US PRIVACY POLICY SITEMAP CONTACT US
logo
Breaking News

Amend motor vehicle rules to compensate victims, SC asks states

Thursday - September 13, 2018 7:18 pm , Category : INDIA
 Amend motor vehicle rules to compensate victims, SC asks states
Amend motor vehicle rules to compensate victims, SC asks states
New Delhi Sep 13 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered all states to amend their rules under the Motor Vehicles Act whereby uninsured motor vehicles involved in accidents both fatal and non-fatal will be auctioned and the proceeds deposited with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to pay compensation to victims.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud directed the states to amend their rules within 12 weeks.
At present this rule is there only in Delhi.
The court was hearing a plea by an accident victim s wife who contended that the Motor Vehicles Act made third-party insurance mandatory for vehicles and it was an offence to drive an uninsured vehicle.
Advocate Radhika Gautam appearing for petitioner Usha Devi said that the mandate behind the law was that the family of those killed or injured in accidents should not be made to litigate for years to get compensation from the owner/driver of the involved vehicle.
The Act intended that the kin of those killed or injured could approach MACT for speedy adjudication of claims and direction to insurance companies to pay up the plea said.
Devi s husband was killed in a road accident in January 2015 while her son was injured. She moved the MACT to seek compensation but the tribunal found that the rogue vehicle was uninsured.
Devi then moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court and sought to make the State a party to her claims proceedings but it rejected her plea. She approached the apex court against the High Court order.

--IANS gt/tsb/sed