Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Compensation Must Not Lie in Dormancy: Supreme Court Issues Nationwide Directions for Disbursal of ₹1000+ Crores Stuck in MACTs and Labour Courts

23 April 2025 6:49 PM

By: sayum


“Disturbing That So Many Successful Claimants Have Been Deprived of Compensation” – In a landmark step to address the systemic inaction surrounding unclaimed compensation, the Supreme Court of India on April 22, 2025, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 7 of 2024, issued comprehensive, pan-India directions to ensure timely disbursal of funds lying dormant with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and Labour Courts. The suo motu action was initiated based on an email by a retired District Judge from Gujarat, Mr. B.B. Pathak, highlighting staggering amounts of unclaimed compensations under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

The Court declared the situation “very disturbing” and sought immediate systemic reform, directing High Courts, Legal Services Authorities, and State Governments to collaborate in tracing and disbursing dues to rightful claimants.

The trigger for this judicial intervention was a May 2024 email, alerting the Supreme Court to vast sums of undistributed compensation in cases already adjudicated. The Chief Justice of India directed the registration of a suo motu writ petition, and notices were issued to several High Courts including Gujarat, Allahabad, Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, and Madras.

The figures revealed in the affidavit shocked the bench:

  • Gujarat: ₹282 crores (MACT) + ₹6.61 crores (Labour Courts)

  • Bombay: ₹459 crores

  • Allahabad: ₹239 crores (MACT) + ₹92.39 crores (Labour Courts)

  • Goa: ₹3.61 crores

  • Calcutta: ₹2.53 crores

“The fact that so many successful claimants have been deprived of compensation is very disturbing. It is necessary to find a solution,” the bench observed.

The Court considered provisions under:

  • Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – for filing compensation claims, and

  • Section 176 – empowering State Governments to frame procedural rules for tribunals.

The Court noted with concern that many States had not exercised these rule-making powers. Consequently, High Courts and Tribunals were left without uniform procedures to ensure claimants' bank and identification details were collected, resulting in funds remaining undisbursed.

Issuing a slew of mandatory guidelines under its constitutional powers, the Court directed:

“Till the rules are not framed, the High Courts shall either issue practice directions or formulate rules of procedure by incorporating the following provisions.”

Key directions include:

  • Mandatory collection of claimants' details: Aadhar, PAN, email, and full address of all legal heirs in fatal accident cases must be provided in claim petitions.

  • Bank details verification: Before any disbursal, tribunals must demand a banker’s certificate or cancelled cheque to verify the authenticity of the recipient’s account.

  • Digital dashboards: State e-Court coordinators are directed to create dashboards listing undisbursed compensation with full case and beneficiary details.

  • Direct transfers of compensation: Tribunals must mandate direct bank transfers rather than manual withdrawals.

  • Consent awards: If parties settle, tribunals should ensure settlement orders include complete account details of all recipients.

  • Long-pending deposits: All MACTs and Commissioners under the 1923 Act must invest undisbursed sums in renewable fixed deposits until claimed.

  • Massive tracing drive: All High Courts are to launch coordinated drives, with help from Legal Services Authorities, para-legal volunteers, and police, to locate and inform rightful beneficiaries.

“It shall be the duty of the learned Judges presiding over the MAC Tribunal to verify… whether the account is of the persons held entitled to receive compensation.”

Monitoring and Compliance

The Court fixed July 30, 2025 as the date for submission of compliance reports by all High Courts and Legal Services Authorities, specifically listing:

  • Total unclaimed compensation still pending,

  • Steps taken to trace and notify claimants,

  • Rules or practice directions already in force.

The Court stressed: “These directions shall continue to bind the MAC Tribunals and the Commissioners under the 1923 Act till rule-making power is properly exercised by the Government.”

High Courts were also empowered to take additional measures beyond the Court's directions.

This unprecedented judicial intervention may catalyze a long-overdue reform in the administration of compensation under welfare legislation. By combining judicial directives with technological tracking and inter-agency cooperation, the Supreme Court seeks to prevent welfare entitlements from being trapped in bureaucratic paralysis.

“It is a matter of grave concern that the claimants, though held entitled to compensation, are unable to access what is rightfully theirs.”

Date of Decision: April 22, 2025

Latest Legal News