Supreme Court advocates direct bank transfer of compensation to streamline motor accident claims process

Supreme Court: In a matter concerning the enhancement of motor accident compensation, the division bench of JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal*, JJ. concluded that the appellant is entitled to receive a total compensation of ₹36,84,000/-. As a result, the impugned award of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was modified to reflect this amount.

Further, the Court expressed its concern regarding the mode of payment of compensation in motor accident cases. The Court highlighted that the existing process could be streamlined by directly transferring the compensation amount into the bank accounts of the claimants with intimation to the Tribunal. This approach, the Court noted, would help avoid unnecessary hassles for both the Insurance Companies and the claimants, and eliminate the need for cumbersome court processes.

Background

The appellant was involved in an accident on 03-06-2014, when a car hit him while he was riding his motorcycle. A criminal case was filed against the car driver. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, leading to quadriplegia and a 100% disability, as per the medical certificate issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon at Civil Hospital, Bathinda. At the time of the accident, the appellant was 21 years old and was pursuing studies to become a veterinary doctor.

The appellant incurred ₹2,66,000/- in medical expenses and filed a claim petition seeking compensation for his injuries. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’) awarded a compensation of ₹5,16,000/-, which was considered a conservative estimate. A lump sum amount of ₹2,00,000/- was awarded for the 100% disability.

Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s award, the appellant appealed to the High Court, which enhanced the compensation to ₹15,25,600/-. The High Court considered the appellant’s income as ₹5,600/- per month and applied a multiplier of 18 for assessing the loss of income. Under the head ‘Loss of Income’, the compensation was increased to ₹12,09,600/-, which was the only modification made by the High Court.

Still not satisfied with the outcome, the appellant has now approached this Court for further relief.

Analysis and Decision

After taking note of the facts of the case, the Court opined that as the appellant had suffered 100% permanent disability, he would have to live with this condition for the rest of his life. Consequently, the appellant would require constant support from an attendant and a special diet due to his quadriplegia.

The Court further observed that the income of the appellant had been assessed on the lower side, which warranted an enhancement. Considering the appellant’s credentials, including his background as a good sportsman and his technical qualifications, the Court concluded that taking his income merely at ₹5,600/- per month was not appropriate. The Court pointed out that this amount was even less than the minimum wage for an unskilled worker, which was ₹6,447.75 per month, effective from 01-03-2014. For a semi-skilled worker, the minimum wage was ₹7,227.75 per month.

In light of these factors, the Court determined that the appellant’s income should be assessed at ₹7,500/- per month, recognising his potential and qualifications, which would have likely enabled him to earn a higher income had the accident not occurred.

The Court said that the High Court had rightly applied a multiplier of 18 in calculating the loss of income, but it had failed to grant any future prospects under the head of ‘Loss of Income’. In the case of the appellant, the Court determined that a 40% enhancement for future prospects was warranted due to his age, qualifications, and the impact of the disability on his ability to earn. Therefore, the appellant’s income, after considering future prospects, was recalculated to ₹10,500/- per month (₹7,500 x 1.4).

Additionally, the Court noted that the appellant, being 100% disabled, was entitled to compensation for the attendant’s services. In this case, the Court assessed the expense for an attendant as ₹5,00,000/- to be awarded as a lump sum.

The Court also found that the compensation for the special diet, initially set at ₹25,000/-, was insufficient and needed to be enhanced to ₹1,00,000/- to adequately cover the appellant’s dietary needs.

Considering the severe impact of the disability on the appellant’s life, the Court concluded that the compensation for pain and suffering should be increased from ₹15,000/- to ₹1,00,000/- to better reflect the trauma and hardship experienced by the appellant.

Further, given the appellant’s condition, the Court awarded ₹2,00,000/- for future medical expenses to cover the ongoing and future medical needs of the appellant. Lastly, acknowledging the effect of the disability on the appellant’s marriage prospects, the Court granted ₹2,00,000/- under this head.

Regarding the appellant’s claim for expenses incurred on physiotherapy, the Court noted that the appellant had produced receipts from his Doctor to support his claim. However, during cross-examination, the said Doctor was unable to substantiate these receipts with counterfoils or the account books he maintained. As a result, the Tribunal and the High Court did not award any compensation for physiotherapy expenses.

The Court acknowledged that while reliance on the receipts could not be placed due to the absence of clinching evidence, it took judicial notice of the fact that physiotherapy is an essential part of rehabilitation for someone with the appellant’s condition. Given this, the Court deemed it appropriate to award a lump sum of ₹50,000/- for the appellant’s physiotherapy expenses, acknowledging the likely need for ongoing therapy despite the lack of direct evidence supporting the receipts.

The Court concluded that the appellant is entitled to receive a total compensation of ₹36,84,000/-. As a result, the impugned award of the High Court was modified to reflect this amount.

Furthermore, the Court specified that the compensation awarded shall carry interest at the same rate that was granted by the High Court on the enhanced compensation. This ensures that the appellant receives not only the revised compensation but also the interest due on it, in line with the terms of the High Court’s original decision regarding the enhanced compensation.

The Court held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation, as there was a valid insurance policy in place. The Court directed the Insurance company to transfer the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellant’s bank account within six weeks from the date of this judgment.

The appellant was directed to provide the particulars of their bank account, along with the necessary documents supporting the same, to the Insurance Company within two weeks from the date of this judgment. After verification of the details provided, the Insurance Company was instructed to transfer the amount along with up-to-date interest to the appellant’s bank account within four weeks thereafter.

Before concluding the order, the Court expressed its concern regarding the mode of payment of compensation in motor accident cases. The Court highlighted that the existing process could be streamlined by directly transferring the compensation amount into the bank accounts of the claimants. This approach, the Court noted, would help avoid unnecessary hassles for both the Insurance Companies and the claimants, and eliminate the need for cumbersome court processes.

The Court took note of the information available on the website of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (Transport Research Wing), Government of India, regarding the number of accidents from 2018 to 2022, along with the corresponding statistics on fatalities and persons injured. The Court observed that the number of claim petitions filed before the Tribunals closely mirrored the figures of fatalities and injuries resulting from these accidents.

In other words, the number of claim petitions being filed was almost in line with the number of persons who had been either killed or injured in road accidents during the specified period. The Court further noted that the disposal of these claims was also proceeding at a similar pace, with the figures of claims filed and claims disposed of being almost neck to neck.

The Court highlighted several challenges in the current practice of compensation disbursement in motor accident cases, particularly regarding the process followed by Insurance Companies and Tribunals.

1. Insurance Companies’ Handling of Compensation: The Court noted that when Insurance Companies are held liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the claimants, the compensation amount is either deposited with the Tribunal or, in a small number of cases, transferred directly to the claimant’s account if directed by the Tribunal. Some companies are efficient in making these deposits, while others take time. Additionally, there are cases where claimants are not informed about the deposit, leading to delays in the withdrawal process.

2. Withdrawal Process: After the compensation is deposited in the Tribunal, the claimants must file an application to withdraw the amount. This process can take 15-20 days on average, due to the time it takes to withdraw the money from the treasury. The Court pointed out that in some cases, the claimants may not even be aware of the deposit, leading to further delays. Moreover, the process involves costs and delays, particularly with larger compensation amounts, which may run into lakhs or even crores.

3. Loss of Interest: The Court emphasised that the delay in disbursement results in the claimants losing out on interest that could have accrued during the 15-20 day period, or even longer in some cases, where they are unaware of the deposit. The Tribunal’s disbursement process also carries the risk of errors or omissions, especially given the substantial sums involved.

4. Lack of Uniform Practice: The Court noted that there is no uniform practice followed regarding whether the deposited amount should remain in the government treasury or if it should be transferred to a bank and kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit. The latter approach would ensure that the claimants do not suffer due to delays in disbursement and would help preserve the interest on the compensation amount.

5. Technological Advancements: The Court pointed out that technology has transformed financial transactions, with artificial intelligence and other innovations now allowing for instantaneous transactions 24/7. In the past, banking transactions, such as cheque deposits, took several days or even weeks, especially for outstation cheques. Today, transactions can be completed instantly, either through mobile phones or other digital platforms. The Court suggested that the disbursement process should leverage such technology to make the entire process more efficient and minimise delays.

The Court observed that the case at hand involves compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by insurance companies, when the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the amount before the Tribunal. However, the Court proposed that rather than continuing with this process, a more efficient approach could be adopted.

The Court suggested that direct transfer of compensation into the bank accounts of the claimants, with intimation to the Tribunal, would be a more streamlined and effective method. This would eliminate unnecessary delays and procedural hurdles, ensuring that claimants receive their rightful compensation more quickly and directly, without having to rely on the traditional deposit process through the Tribunal.

The Court provided a detailed set of suggestions to improve the process of compensation disbursement in motor accident cases.

1. Furnishing Bank Account Details: At the initial stage of pleadings or evidence presentation, claimants should be required to provide their bank account details to the Tribunal, along with the necessary proof. This ensures that when the award is passed, the Tribunal can directly order the transfer of compensation into the claimants’ bank accounts. In cases where multiple claimants are involved, the compensation should be transferred to each claimant’s respective account.

2. Requirement for Bank Accounts: If a claimant does not have a bank account, they should be required to open one, either individually or jointly with a family member, before the Tribunal passes the final award. Additionally, claimants must update the Tribunal with any changes in their bank account details during the pendency of the case. The account must be in the name of the claimant(s) or, in the case of minors, in the name of their guardian(s). The account should not be a joint account with anyone who is not a family member.

3. Satisfaction of Award: Once the compensation is transferred to the claimant’s bank account, this transfer will be considered as the satisfaction of the award. The claimant must also inform the Tribunal of the compliance.

4. Fixed Deposits for Minors: In cases where the compensation is awarded to a minor claimant or where directed by the Tribunal, a certain percentage of the compensation may be required to be kept in a fixed deposit. The responsibility for ensuring this compliance will lie with the bank, and the bank must report its compliance to the Tribunal.

5. Delay in Release of Compensation: The Court acknowledged that in some cases, the compensation remains deposited in the Tribunal because the claimants may not approach the Tribunal to claim it. This results in a loss of interest for the claimants. By adopting the new procedure, this gap can be bridged, ensuring that compensation is disbursed without delay and that the purpose of the legislation, that is to compensate claimants for losses or injuries, can be achieved effectively.

6. Generalisation of the Process: The Court noted that while this process is specifically being adopted for motor accident cases, it could be applied to any case where one party is required to pay another, ensuring proper compliance.

The Court directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to the Registrars General of all High Courts, to ensure that the order is placed before the Chief Justice of each High Court for circulation and compliance by the Tribunals and Courts concerned.

Additionally, the Court instructed the Registry to send the order to the Directors of the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to ensure that the practice outlined in the order is followed by all Tribunals and Courts across the country.