CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Negligible Number of Victims Have Taken Advantage: Supreme Court Directs Effective Implementation of MV Act for Hit and Run Victims

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a order dated January 12, 2024, has emphasized the need for effective implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), particularly concerning compensation in hit and run motor accidents. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, highlighted concerns over the inadequate reach and awareness of the existing scheme.

In their order, the Court noted, "Negligible number of victims have taken advantage of the said scheme," indicating a significant gap in the implementation process. This observation came against the backdrop of increasing hit and run accidents and low claim numbers under the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022.

The Court’s decision directs a comprehensive review and amendment of the Scheme, if necessary, to ensure its effective implementation and wider public awareness. The judgment also underscores the responsibility of the police and the Claims Enquiry Officer in guiding victims or their legal representatives to avail of the Scheme's benefits.

Further, addressing the concerns regarding the Solatium Scheme, which was superseded by the 2022 Scheme, the Court proposed an extension of the time limit for eligible claimants. This move is seen as a relief measure for victims who were unaware of their rights under the previous scheme.

In a directive aimed at ensuring regular monitoring and effective implementation at the district level, the Court has ordered the formation of Monitoring Committees. These committees, involving various stakeholders, will oversee the execution of the Scheme and ensure compliance with the Court's directives.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has asked the Central Government to consider an annual enhancement of compensation amounts under the Scheme, acknowledging the diminishing value of money over time.

The next hearing is scheduled for April 22, 2024, where compliance reports by various authorities will be reviewed. This judgment is expected to bring a significant change in how victims of hit and run accidents are compensated and supported in India.

Date of Decision: January 12, 2024

RAJASEEKARAN VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS

 

Latest Legal News