MACT Bar Association moves Bombay High Court challenging Motor Vehicles Amendment Act

The Bombay High Court on Friday sought the response of the Central government on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the Rules made under the same..Advocate Pranav Thackur, appearing for the Central government, sought time to respond to the plea.A bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta allowed the request and posted the matter for hearing after two weeks..The petition filed by the Bar Association of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai said that the MV Act had introduced 'no-fault liability' in Indian jurisprudence and the Act ensured that compensation is paid by insurance company to the victim.An amendment bill was introduced in 2011 which proposed to limit third-party liability of the insurance company.“The bills limiting liability of insurance companies and imposing limitation in filing the claims by the accident victims, as the same was about to bring a draconian effect over the families of road accident victims” the petition filed through advocate Yatin Malvankar stated.The petitioner had given representations to concerned authorities flagging their concerns about the bill.While this bill lapsed, a similar bill was passed in 2019 which became an Act despite opposition to the same.The amended provisions of the 2019 Act were kept in abeyance for sometime, which gave an impression to the petitioner that their grievances were probably considered.However, the entire act came to be implemented fully in April this year, the plea pointed out.The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court apprehending possible difficulties that could arise for litigants in future..The amended Act of 2019 deleted Chapter X of MV Act which pertained to ‘no fault liability’ in certain cases. The provisions of Chapter X not only fixed the interim liability but also fixed the amount of compensation that a victim of a vehicular accident can expect from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.The amendment also replaced Section 163A which was enacted prior to amendment whereby compensation was awarded without proof of negligence taking into consideration the low income of a person.The amended Act also force victims to either claim compensation under Section 164 of the amended act or Section 166 of the pre-amended act, but specify that claims under Section 164 would lead to claims lapsing under Section 166, the petitioner submitted.The amended Act also provides that no application for compensation would be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of this accident.This, the petitioner contended, will deprive poor victims of road accidents from claiming compensation under present MV Act.“Hence amended act is putting restriction on the right of the victim to get a fair and just compensation. It will be a violation of right to life of the victims of the accident,” the plea stated..Through the present petition, the association sought quashing of the amendment act and also a stay on its operation.