• Compensation for Hit & Run case

I am a victim of hit & run case (without any loss of life to involved or 3rd party). The culprit vehicle(BIG SUV) fled from the scene of accident. Its vehicle Registration plate fell at the spot of accident. FIR lodged & got the car released for repairs on Courts order (Superdaari). My car was in police station for a month but the culprit vehicle (costly SUV), as per my information, has not been brought to police despite, not even for a day. 

How can I claim compensation for losses incurred due to the accident, namely;
1. Being without car for 2 months. 
2. Workshop expenses incurred after settlement of Insurance claim. 
3. Loss of No claim Bonus for insurance renewal. 
4. Litigation expenses for getting the car released on Court order.
5. Mental harassment.

Given the alarming rise in such hit & run cases (which have resulted in major fatality to the involved & also to the third parties), can the H'able court take a strict view & allow compensation as a more severe penalty (apart from the stipulated penalty of paying fine only)?
Asked 4 months ago in Criminal Law from New Delhi, Delhi
Religion: Hindu
Hi, For the expenses involved for the repair of the vehicle you have to claim the same from Insurance Company.

2. Secondly, for your medical treatments and other things you have to file a petition against the owner of the Car and his insurance company for the compensation and the Court will  grant the compensation to you. you have to preserve your medical bills and treatment sheet etc which is need to be produce before the Court.

3. Thirdly, for the penal provisions under IPC separate   case was registered against the owner of the vehicle. 
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4092 Answers
129 Consultations
4.3 on 5.0
you have to file suit for damages to claim losses enumerated by you 

2) Sc has in case of Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors given detailed directions on payment of compensation to accident victims 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21708 Answers
1132 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Supreme Court of India
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
Author: R Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Mukundakam Sharma, K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 11801-11804 of 2005
Jai Prakash ....... Petitioner
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ....... Respondents
 O R D E R
We propose to address four problems frequently faced in motor accident claim cases under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short).
Problem (i)
2. The first problem relates to a section of motor accident victims who are doubly unfortunate - first
in getting involved in an accident, and second, in not getting any compensation. Let us elaborate.
There are two categories of victims in motor accidents - those who will be able to get compensation
and those who will not be able to get compensation. Victims of motor accidents involving insured
vehicles, who are assured of getting compensation from the insurer, fall in the first category. Victims
of motor accidents involving the following categories of vehicles, who do not receive any
compensation fall under the second category:-
 (i) Hit and run vehicles which remain
 (ii) Vehicles which do not have any insurance
 (iii) Vehicles with third party insurance,
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
carrying persons who are not covered by the insurance (gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle or a
car, and pillion riders on two wheelers etc.) In hit and run cases, the victim has no one from whom
he can claim or get compensation. In regard to vehicles which do not have any insurance or do not
have an insurance covering the risks relating to gratuitous passengers/riders, even if the
driver/owner may be made liable under an award of the Tribunal, there is little or no chance of
recovery of compensation that may be awarded. This is because normally driver and owners of
uninsured vehicles will not have the capacity to pay the compensation or would have transferred
their assets to escape paying compensation. It is estimated that around 20% of the victims of motor
accidents fall under the unfortunate categories who do not get any compensation (except some who
may get a token amount under Section 161 or 140 of the Act). A person hit by an uninsured vehicle,
feels frustrated, cheated and discriminated, when he does not get any compensation, but sees
another person hit by an insured vehicle getting compensation. The victim does not choose the
vehicle which hits him, nor any role in causing the accident. But a victim is denied compensation, if
the vehicle which hits disappears without trace, or if the vehicle is without insurance, while a similar
victim hit by an insured vehicle gets compensation. Should the State, which by law provided for
compulsory third party insurance to protect motor accident victims, ignore these 20% victims who
do not get compensation or provide them with some effective remedy? Should the State go
something to reduce the incidence of non-insurance?
Problem (ii)
3. The second problem relates to the widespread practice of using goods vehicles for passenger
traffic. Such use is primarily due to the following four reasons:
(a) Non-availability of regular mode of passenger transport in several parts of the country,
particularly in rural areas, compelling people to use lorries and other goods vehicles as modes of
transport to reach their destinations.
(b) Non-availability of contract carriages for group travel during special occasions. Consequently,
large groups of people use, again mostly in rural areas, goods vehicles (lorries and tractor-trailers)
for group travel on occasions like marriages, festivals, functions and political rallies.
(c) Frequent break-down of buses/cars/other vehicles (on roads with sparse traffic) due to bad
maintenance of roads or the vehicles, or other emergencies forcing the stranded passengers to use
goods vehicles to reach nearest city or town from which they can get regular recognized modes of
(d) The temptation of lorry drivers to make a quick buck by carrying passengers for a fare (with or
without the knowledge of the owner) coupled with the attraction of a low fare for the poor and
needy. (These passengers though termed as `gratuitous' passengers, except in a few cases, are fare
paying illegal passengers).
Where persons travel in a goods vehicle either knowing or not knowing that such travel is illegal
(gratuitously or by paying an illegal `fare' to the driver or owner) and such the vehicle is involved in
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
an accident resulting in injuries to such passengers, various legal and moral questions arise.
Whether the victims are entitled to compensation? Whether the insurer is liable? Whether the
owner, who may be unaware of such illegal carriage by the driver, can be made liable? Whether the
owner and driver of goods vehicles should be made liable to pay compensation, even where they
were carrying passengers stranded on the road, gratuitously only out of sympathy ? Whether
`illegal' passengers should be denied compensation as a deterrent to discourage unauthorized
travel? Should we ignore the harsh reality that as long as the causes necessitating or forcing people
to resort to such illegal travel in goods vehicles continue to exist, people will continue to travel in
goods vehicles, unmindful of the risk, whether legal or illegal? Problem (iii)
4. The third problem relates to the procedural delays in adjudication/settlement of claims by Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunals (for short `Tribunals') and consequential hardship to the victims and
their families. In cases where the accident victim dies, the family - usually the widow and children -
loses its sole bread winner and are virtually driven to the streets. Many a time, the widow and
children are forced to take up unaccustomed manual labour for their survival, the children foregoing
their education. Payment of compensation without delay will help them to sustain themselves and
pick up the threads to live with dignity. 4.1) Most of the accident victims (who are injured) are not
able to access quality medical treatment for want of funds, as their earning capacity is either
permanently lost or is put on hold on account of the injuries. They get the compensation only after
the treatment and after a contested trial. Many a time lack of treatment or inadequate treatment for
want of funds, itself converts what could have been a temporary disability into permanent disability
for the victim, thereby increasing the compensation payable. The Insurance Companies know full
well that timely payment of compensation or timely better treatment of the victims can ultimately
reduce the quantum of compensation payable by them. The insurance companies also know that
they will have to ultimately reimburse the cost of medical treatment of the accident victim with
interest. But still they fail to extend timely aid to the injured victims, but wait for the injured to file a
claim petition, after completing the treatment at his own cost.
4.2) The Legislature tried to reduce the period of pendency of claim cases and quicken the process of
determination of compensation by making two significant changes in the Act, by Amendment Act 54
of 1994, making it mandatory for registration of a motor accident claim within one month of receipt
of first information of the accident, without the claimants having to file a claim petition. Sub-section
(6) of section 158 of the Act provides:
"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".
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
Sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the Act reads thus:- "The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of
accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation
under this Act".
Rule 150 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prescribes the form (No.54) of the Police Report
required to be submitted under section 158(6) of the Act. 4.3) This Court in General Insurance
Council v. State of A.P. [2007 (12) SCC 354] emphasised the need for implementing the aforesaid
provisions. This Court directed:
"It is, therefore, directed that all the State Governments and the Union Territories
shall instruct all police officers concerned about the need to comply with the
requirement of Section 158(6) keeping in view the requirement indicated in Rule 150
and in Form 54, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Periodical checking shall be
done by the Inspector General of Police concerned to ensure that the requirements
are being complied with. In case there is non-compliance, appropriate action shall be
taken against the erring officials. The Department of Road Transport and Highways
shall make periodical verification to ensure that action is being taken and in case of
any deviation immediately bring the same to the notice of the State
Governments/Union Territories concerned so that necessary action can be taken
against the officials concerned."
4.4) But unfortunately neither the police nor the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have made any
effort to implement these mandatory provisions of the Act. If these provisions are faithfully and
effectively implemented, it will be possible for the victims of accident and/or their families to get
compensation, in a span of few months. There is, therefore, an urgent need for the concerned police
authorities and Tribunals to follow the mandate of these provisions.
Problem (iv)
5. Courts have always been concerned that the full compensation amount does not reach and benefit
the victims and their families, particularly those who are uneducated, ignorant, or not worldly-wise.
Unless there are built-in safeguards they may be deprived of the benefit of compensation which may
be the sole source of their future sustenance. This court has time and again insisted upon measures
to ensure that the compensation amount is appropriately invested and protected and not frittered
away owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. [See Union Carbide
Corporation v. Union of India - 1991 (4) SCC 584 and General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas - 1994 (2) SCC 176]. But in spite of the directions in
these cases, the position continues to be far from unsatisfactory and in many cases unscrupulous
relatives, agents and touts are taking away a big chunk of the compensation, by ingenious methods.
Reports of Amicus Curiae
6. In this background, to find some solutions, on 9.9.2008, this Court requested Shri Gopal
Subramaniam, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. The learned amicus curiae with his usual
thoroughness and commitment has examined the issues and submitted a series of reports and has
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
also made several suggestions for consideration. He has also referred to and relied on a series of
zealous directions issued by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court to expedite and
streamline the adjudication of motor vehicle claims and disbursement of compensation.
7. Having considered the nature of the problems and taking note of the several suggestions made by
the learned Amicus Curiae and after hearing, we propose to issue a set of directions to the police
authorities and Claims Tribunals. We also propose to make some suggestions for implementation by
Insurance Companies and some suggestions for the consideration of the Parliament and the Central
Directions to Police Authorities
8. The Director General of Police of each State is directed to instruct all Police Stations in his State
to comply with the provisions of Section 158(6) of the Act. For this purpose, the following steps will
have to be taken by the Station House Officers of the jurisdictional police stations:
(i) Accident Information Report in Form No. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 (`AIR' for
short) shall be submitted by the police (Station House Officer) to the jurisdictional Motor Vehicle
Claims Tribunal, within 30 days of the registration of the FIR. In addition to the particulars required
to be furnished in Form No. 54, the police should also collect and furnish the following additional
particulars in the AIR to the Tribunal: (i) The age of the victims at the time of accident; (ii) The
income of the victim; (iii) The names and ages of the dependent family members.
(ii) The AIR shall be accompanied by the attested copies of the FIR, site
sketch/mahazar/photographs of the place of occurrence, driving licence of the driver, insurance
policy (and if necessary, fitness certificate) of the vehicle and postmortem report (in case of death)
or the Injury/Wound certificate (in the case of injuries). The names/addresses of injured or
dependant family members of the deceased should also be furnished to the Tribunal.
(iii) Simultaneously, copy of the AIR with annexures thereto shall be furnished to the concerned
insurance company to enable the Insurer to process the claim.
(iv) The police shall notify the first date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal to the victim (injured) or
the family of the victim (in case of death) and the driver, owner and insurer. If so directed by the
Tribunal, the police may secure their presence on the first date of hearing.
9. To avoid any administrative difficulties in immediate implementation of sections 158(6) of the
Act, we permit such implementation to be carried out in three stages. In the first stage, all police
stations/claims Tribunals in the NCT Region and State Capital regions shall implement the
provisions by end of April 2010. In the second stage, all the police stations/claims Tribunals in
district headquarters regions shall implement the provisions by the end of August 2010. In the third
stage, all police stations/Claims Tribunals shall implement the provisions by the end of December,
2010. The Director Generals shall ensure that necessary forms and infrastructural support is made
available to give effect to Section 158 (6) of the Act.
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
10. Section 196 of the Act provides that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor
vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 146 shall be punishable with
imprisonment which may be extended to three months, or with fine which may extend to Rs.
1000/-, or with both. Though the statute requires prosecution of the driver and owner of uninsured
vehicles, this is seldom done. Thereby a valuable deterrent is ignored. We therefore direct the
Director Generals to issue instructions to prosecute drivers and owners of uninsured vehicles under
Section 196 of the Act.
11. The Transport Department, Health Department and other concerned departments shall extend
necessary co- operation to the Director-Generals to give effect to Section 158 (6).
Directions to the Claims Tribunals
12. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to instruct all Claims Tribunals in his State
to register the reports of accidents receive under Section 158 (6) of the Act as applications for
compensation under Section 166 (4) of the Act and deal with them without waiting for the filing of
claim applications by the injured or by the family of the deceased. The Registrar General shall
ensure that necessary Registers, forms and other support is extended to the Tribunal to give effect to
Section 166 (4) of the Act.
13. For complying with section 166(4) of the Act, the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claims Tribunals
shall initiate the following steps:
(a) The Tribunal shall maintain an Institution Register for recording the AIRs which are received
from the Station House Officers of the Police Stations and register them as miscellaneous petitions.
If any private claim petitions are directly filed with reference to an AIR, they should also be recorded
in the Register.
(b) The Tribunal shall list the AIRs as miscellaneous petitions. It shall fix a date for preliminary
hearing so as to enable the police to notify such date to the victim (family of victim in the event of
death) and the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Once the claimant/s
appear, the miscellaneous application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a claimant/s file
the claim petition even before the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR may be tagged to the
claim petition.
(c) The Tribunal shall enquire and satisfy itself that the AIR relates to a real accident and is not the
result of any collusion and fabrication of an accident (by any `Police Officer - Advocate - Doctor'
nexus, which has come to light in several cases).
(d) The Tribunal shall by a summary enquiry ascertain the dependent family members/legal heirs.
The jurisdictional police shall also enquire and submit the names of the dependent legal heirs.
(e) The Tribunal shall categories the claim cases registered, into those where the insurer disputes
liability and those where the insurer does not dispute the liability.
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
(f) Wherever the insurer does not dispute the liability under the policy, the Tribunal shall make an
endeavour to determine the compensation amount by a summary enquiry or refer the matter to the
Lok Adalat for settlement, so as to dispose of the claim petition itself, within a time frame not
exceeding six months from the date of registration of the claim petition.
(g) The insurance companies shall be directed to deposit the admitted amount or the amount
determined, with the claims tribunals within 30 days of determination. The Tribunals should ensure
that the compensation amount is kept in Fixed deposit and disbursed as per the directions
contained in General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas [1994 (2) SCC 176].
(h) As the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Section 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act, are different in
nature from an application by the victim/s under Section 166(1) of the Act, Section 170 will not
apply. The insurers will therefore be entitled to assist the Tribunal (either independently or with the
owners of the vehicles) to verify the correctness in regard to the accident, injuries, age, income and
dependents of the deceased victim and in determining the quantum of compensation.
14. The aforesaid directions to the Tribunals are without prejudice to the discretion of each Tribunal
to follow such summary procedure as it deems fit as provided under Section 169 of the Act. Many
Tribunals instead of holding an inquiry into the claim by following suitable summary procedure, as
mandated by Section 168 and 169 of the Act, tend to conduct motor accident cases like regular civil
suits. This should be avoided. The Tribunal shall take an active role in deciding and expeditious
disposal of the applications for compensation and make effective use of Section 165 of the Evidence
Act, 1872, to determine the just compensation.
15. 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.
16. In cases of injuries to any accident victim, where the liability is not disputed, the insurer should
offer treatment at its cost to the injured, without waiting for an award of the Tribunal. If insurance
companies can meet the bills for treatment of those who have taken a medical insurance policy, we
see no reason why they should not extend a similar treatment to the accident victims of vehicles
insured with them.
17. In countries like United Kingdom, the percentage of motor accident claims, with reference to the
accidents is very low. This is because immediately after being notified of the accident, the insurer
makes its own enquiries and satisfies itself about its liability and voluntarily assesses and pays the
compensation to the victim. Only where the insurer denies the claim or where the victim is not
satisfied with the quantum of compensation paid, the matter goes to court. There is no reason why
insurance companies in India should not adopt such a procedure. In death cases, the calculation of
compensation is now standardized by several decisions of this court [See for example: Sarla Verma
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
v. Delhi Transport Corporation - 2009 (6) SCC 121]. The insurers can either by relying upon the
police report (AIR) or by enquiring with the family or the employer of the deceased, ascertain the
three inputs required for calculation of the compensation, that is, age of the deceased, income of the
deceased and number of dependent family members. With these particulars, the insurers can easily
calculate the compensation and offer a compensation, either a lump sum or an annuity. Similarly in
cases of injuries, the insurers can offer treatment in hospitals approved by it and meet the expenses
or pay the bills, or if the victim has already undergone the treatment, reimburse the cost of
treatment. It can also reimburse other items of special damages, the damages for pain suffering,
which is also standardized in several decisions of this Court. By such voluntary payment there will
be all round benefits. The insurers save interest and litigation cost and discharge their obligation to
the society. The victims will be relieved from financial hardship and benefit from timely effective
treatment. Burden on courts will be reduced and judicial man power can be diverted to more
complex cases.
18. To protect and preserve the compensation amount awarded to the families of the deceased
victim special schemes may be considered by the insurance companies in consultation with the Life
Insurance Corporation of India, State Bank of India or any other Nationalized Banks. One proposal
is for formulation of a scheme in consultation with Nationalized Banks under which the
compensation is kept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period and interest is paid by the Bank
monthly to the claimants without any need for claimants having to approach either the court or their
counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of compensation is
utilized only for the benefit of the injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the
dependent family. We extract below the particulars of a special Scheme offered by a nationalized
Bank at the instance of the Delhi High Court :
(i)The fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court.
(ii)The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly.
(iii)The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
(iv)Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original
passbook shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(v)The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed
deposit period.
(vi)Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only
after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
(vii)No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the court.
(viii)No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
(ix)The claimant can operate the saving bank account from the nearest branch of UCO Bank and on
the request of the claimant, the bank shall provide the said facility.
19. The Insurance companies may also consider offering an annuity instead of lump sum
compensation. They may prepare an annuity scheme with the involvement of Life Insurance
Corporation of India or its own actuaries, under which they can pay a monthly annuity to the widow
(for life) and to minor children (till they attain majority) and in addition a lump sum at the end of
20 or 25 years to the widow. The benefit of such annuity scheme may also be extended to victims
who are permanently disabled in accidents. Once such schemes are in place, the victims and the
Tribunal will have some choice in the manner of payment of compensation.
20. Whenever the insurance companies find that the driver of the insured vehicle possessed
fake/forged driving license, they should lodge a complaint with the concerned police for
prosecution. This will reduce the incidence of fake licences and increase the road travel safety.
21. We may next refer to some vital areas where intervention by the legislature and/or executive is
called for. The suggestions are intended to draw the attention of the executive and legislature to the
several vexed issues, which when properly and expeditiously addressed, will improve the system of
compensating the motor accident victims.
Ensuring that all accident victims get compensation
22. To ensure that all accident victims get compensation, it is necessary to formulate a more
comprehensive scheme for payment of compensation to victims of road accidents, in place of the
present system of third party insurance. For example, in South Africa and some other African
countries, Road Accident Funds have been created, managed by Road Accident Fund Commissions,
thereby eliminating the need for third party insurance. A fuel levysurcharge is collected on the sale
of petrol and diesel and credited to such fund. All accident victims, without exception, are paid
compensation from out of the said fund by the Commission. But the feedback from operational
statistics relating to such funds is that the scheme, while successful in smaller countries, may
encounter difficulties and financial deficits in larger countries like South Africa or developing
countries with infrastructural deficiencies.
23. An alternative scheme involves the collection of a one time (life time) third party insurance
premium by a Central Insurance Agency in respect of every vehicle sold (in a manner similar to the
collection of life time road tax). The fund created by collection of such third party insurance can be
augmented/supplemented by an appropriate road accident cess/surcharge on the price of
petrol/diesel sold across the country. Such a hybrid model which involves collection of a fixed life
time premium in regard to each vehicle plus imposition of a road accident cess may provide a more
satisfactory solution in a vast country like India. This will also address a major grievance of
insurance companies that their outgoings by way of compensation in motor accident claims is four
times the amount received as motor insurance premia. The general insurance companies may
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
however continue with optional insurance to provide cover against damage to the vehicle and injury
to the owner.
24. A more realistic and easier alternative is to continue with the present system of third party
insurance with two changes:
(i) Define `third party' - to cover any accident victim (that is any third party, other than the owner)
and increasing the premia, if necessary.
(ii) Increase the quantum of compensation payable under Section 161 of the Act in case of hit and
run motor accidents.
25. India has the dubious distinction of being one of the countries with the highest number of road
accidents and the longest response time in securing first aid and medical treatment. There is
therefore an urgent need for laying down and enforcing Road safety measures and establishment of
large number of Trauma Centres and first aid centres. It is also necessary to consider the
establishment of a Road Safety Bureau to lay down Road Safety Standards and norms, enforce Road
safety measures, establish and run Trauma Centres, establish First Aid Centres in Petrol Stations,
and carry out research/data collection for accident prevention.
26. Several countries have comprehensive enactments dealing exclusively with accidents. In place of
the provisions relating to Accident tribunals and award of compensation in the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, and other statutes dealing with accidents and compensation, enacting a comprehensive and
unified statute dealing with accidents may be considered.
Rationalisation of II schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
27. The Central Government may consider amendment of the Second Schedule to the Act to rectify
the several mistakes therein and rationalize the compensation payable thereunder, repeatedly
pointed out by this Court [See U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra - 1996 (4)
SCC 362, and Sarla Verma (supra)]. Securing the compensation to the victims of accidents involving
uninsured vehicles
28. Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or
deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition
precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is
not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the
vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. The appropriate
Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf.
Jai Prakash vs M/S. National Insurance Co. & Ors on 17 December, 2009
29. The Supreme Court Registry is directed to send copies of this order to (i) Chief Secretaries and
Director Generals of Police of all States, and (ii) Registrar-Generals of all High Courts, for
compliance with the directions. The suggestions made may be placed before the Central
Government by the learned Solicitor General. Registry may receive and put up any other
suggestions. List for further directions on 7.1.2010.
(R V Raveendran) ____________________J.
 (Mukundakam Sharma)
New Delhi; ____________________J.
December 17, 2009. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21708 Answers
1132 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Hi, Apart from the claiming compensation in Motor accident Tribunal you have no other remedy.
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4092 Answers
129 Consultations
4.3 on 5.0
You can file a claim petition before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to claim the recovery of the loss incurred by you as well as compensation for mental agony against the accused. The courts do award stringent compensation in appropriate cases.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
17432 Answers
425 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Hi, Yes you can claim the compensation from the tribunal, first you have to file petition for compensation before the Motor accident Claim Tribunal.
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4092 Answers
129 Consultations
4.3 on 5.0
Read my reply again. I have said that you can claim compensation for the loss suffered by you. 
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
17432 Answers
425 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
in case of accident comprehensive insurance policy cover your losses i.e. damage to your car or personal injuries, disability and death, respectively

2)the culprit must be having third party insurance 

3)nder culprit  third party insurance, you  can file a claim for compensation for injury, death, property damage caused by your car. 

4)If you are the third party hit by another's car then you can claim damages from the other person. In case of injury you can claim medical expenses, compensation for physical disfigurement and also for loss of earnings if you are unable to work after the accident 

5) in your case there is no loss of life or property . you would not get litigation expenses , mental harassment suffered from MACT 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21708 Answers
1132 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
The compensation on the items you have mentioned cannot be legally claimed from him.
Whether or not both the vehicles were involved in the accident.
How ever you can issue a legal notice to him seeking compensation for the loss you suffered, but there is no law to force him to bear your losses.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
12614 Answers
120 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
None of the learned Advocates so far have confirmed whether I can surely claim compensation when there is NO loss of life or property to the involved parties, except damages to the vehicle.
I couldn't find an iota of hint whether it is legally admissible in the Motors Accident Claim tribunal!!

There is no claim maintainable on the lines of what you have mentioned.  
MACT will not award any compensation for all those things claimed by you.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
12614 Answers
120 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Criminal Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
12614 Answers
120 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
17432 Answers
425 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
11320 Answers
206 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
4593 Answers
48 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3343 Answers
123 Consultations
4.8 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2635 Answers
38 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
822 Answers
36 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1847 Answers
18 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1933 Answers
61 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Thresiamma G. Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1275 Answers
82 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0