“Rights Of Accident Victims Under Indian Law”
- Abhishek Narayan Mishra
- Sep 6
- 20 min read
Updated: Sep 14
ABSTRACT:
It’s a grim reality that road accidents in India are more than just news headlines; they are a full-blown public health crisis, leaving a trail of economic and social devastation. This guide is an attempt to walk you through the legal maze that a victim faces, from the critical first moments after a crash to the final verdict in a courtroom. We'll look at the core laws—the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and its game-changing 2019 update, along with the new criminal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The focus here is on the rights that matter most when you need them: immediate medical help in the ‘Golden Hour,’ the legal protections for ‘Good Samaritans’ who stop to help, and the two main paths to getting compensation. We will also be looking into the Supreme Court's role in developing the calculation of compensation through some landmark cases now made much more predictable, especially for families with a lost breadwinner or victims who were left without earnings. View this as a general guide to manoeuvring the processes at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the specific rights of the most vulnerable, such as pedestrians. Ultimately, it is going to be a fight against the gap between rights spelled out in law and the justice meted out on the streets-a fight that many continue to have.
INTRODUCTION:
Let me be straightforward: India's highways remain some of the most precarious in the country. A tragic record – The country leads the world in road-mishap fatalities and accounts for 11% of these globally. In 2021 these figures were 153,972. These figures do not denote just abstract data. They represent a deep, bleeding wound in our society and a massive drag on our economy, costing us an estimated 3.14% of our GDP.
And this crisis doesn't hit everyone equally. A World Bank study painted a stark picture of how road accidents disproportionately hammer the poor. Following an accident, income for a low-income family tends to go down by as much as 75%; for high-income families, this figure is 54%. All too often, an accident may deathly incapacitate the sole earning member of a family, perhaps casting an endless shadow into the debt-poverty cycle. More often than not, women are the ones who are tasked with patching their families together while suddenly finding themselves full-time caregivers and trying to make some ends meet, and that only furthers inequality.
In that horrifying disoriented time after an accident, having the rights one is entitled too is not an ink on a page issue, it is a life or death line. It helps the victim or victim’s family to cut through the red tape to influence hospitals take immediate medical attentions and to pursue the just compensation. For many, this money is the only thing standing between them and financial ruin. Yet, a huge number of victims, especially from poorer backgrounds, never claim these benefits. Why? They just don’t realize that they have a right. This is why being able to navigate the legal lay of the land is the first, and most essential step, to surviving in the wake of an accident.
The legal structure which provides for a shield to the victims of accident in India, is based on three major statutes, namely the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA); its significant amendment made during 2019, known as Motor Vehicles Amendment Act (MVAA); and the new criminal code, the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The MVA is the big one; it encompasses everything from driving licences to special courts known as Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) that conduct adjudications on compensation cases. The 2019 amendment was a significant step in the right direction. Faced with horrifying accident numbers, lawmakers shifted the focus to road safety, jacked up the fines for traffic violations, and, most importantly, added new protections for victims. Finally, the BNS (which replaced the old Indian Penal Code) deals with the criminal side of things—punishing the driver responsible for the accident.
The 2019 amendment, in particular, seems to signal a real change in thinking. The old laws were mostly about managing traffic and punishing bad drivers. But the death toll kept rising, proving that just punishing people wasn't enough of a deterrent. The new law brought in ideas like the 'Golden Hour' for cashless medical treatment and legal protection for 'Good Samaritans' who help at the scene. This suggests a shift in philosophy: treating road accidents less like a simple crime and more like a public health emergency where saving lives comes first.
The table at the mentioned below translates the key changes as far as I was able to determine them. Read it to see that movement toward putting the victim first.
Provision | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Pre-Amendment) | Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 |
Hit-and-Run Compensation (Death) | ₹25,000 | ₹2,00,000 |
Hit-and-Run Compensation (Grievous Hurt) | ₹12,500 | ₹50,000 |
No-Fault Liability Compensation (Death) | ₹50,000 (under old Sec 140) | ₹5,00,000 (under new Sec 164) |
No-Fault Liability Compensation (Grievous Hurt) | ₹25,000 (under old Sec 140) | ₹2,50,000 (under new Sec 164) |
Good Samaritan Protection | No explicit statutory provision; relied on SC guidelines. | Explicit legal shield under Section 134A. |
Golden Hour Treatment | No explicit statutory provision. | Scheme for cashless treatment mandated under Section 162. |
Time Limit for Filing Claim | No time limit. | 6 months from the date of the accident (Sec 166(3)). |
Motor Vehicle Accident Fund | Solatium Fund with limited scope. | Creation of a comprehensive Motor Vehicle Accident Fund (Sec 164B). |
The First Hour: Immediate Rights and Protections at the Accident Scene:
What happens in the first few moments after an accident can literally be the difference between life and death. Indian law has started to recognize this, putting in place rights and protections aimed at one thing: increasing the odds of survival.
The 'Golden Hour' Rule (Section 2(12A), MVA): The Right to Life-Saving Medical Treatment:
The 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act officially wrote the 'Golden Hour' into law.
What does that actually mean? The 'Golden Hour' is defined as the first hour after a major injury, a window of time were getting proper medical care gives the highest chance of preventing death. This isn't just a legal term; it's a medical fact. A report from AIIMS found that delays in getting to a hospital are a huge factor in accident fatalities, and that immediate care could save up to half of the lives lost.
This brings us to a victim's most basic right: the right to immediate medical help. The law now requires the government to set up a system for cashless treatment for victims during this Golden Hour. In theory, this means no hospital, public or private, can turn away an accident victim or ask for money upfront before starting emergency treatment. A doctor who refuses to provide timely care could even be prosecuted for professional misconduct.
But there's often a gap between the law on paper and the reality on the ground. A nationwide cashless treatment system is still a work in progress. Anyone who has been to an emergency room knows the challenges: overcrowding, a lack of proper trauma equipment (especially in smaller government hospitals), and staff who may not even be aware of these rules.
THE GOOD SAMARITAN LAW (SECTION 134A, MVA): EMPOWERING BYSTANDERS:
Another key to survival is whether anyone at the scene is willing to help. For years, a culture of fear held people back. We've all seen it: bystanders filming an accident on their phones instead of helping the person bleeding on the road. A study by the Save LIFE Foundation found that a shocking 88% of people were afraid to help because they feared getting tangled up with the police, being harassed, or even being forced to pay hospital bills.
The Good Samaritan Law, now officially part of the Motor Vehicles Act, was designed to tear down that wall of fear.
What does that actually mean? A 'Good Samaritan' is anyone who, in good faith and without expecting a reward, voluntarily helps an accident victim at the scene.
The law gives these people a strong legal shield:
Immunity from Liability: A Good Samaritan can't be sued or charged with a crime for any injury or death that might have resulted from their attempt to help.
Protection from Compulsion: They don't have to give their name, address, or any personal details to the police or hospital staff. It's completely their choice.
No Detention or Costs: Hospitals are forbidden from holding a Good Samaritan or making them pay for the victim's treatment.
Simplified Witness Procedure: If a Good Samaritan agrees to be a witness, they should only have to be questioned once, and the law even allows for this to be done over video call to make it less of a hassle.
To work as intended, these two rules — the Golden Hour and the Good Samaritan Law — should be complementary. One encourages people to do what’s right and help even if it’s not safe, while the other ensures that should that happen, when rescue comes, the victim can arrive at a hospital immediately and without any request for payment.
Duties of Drivers, Owners, and the Police:
The law also puts clear responsibilities on the people involved in the crash. The driver must take reasonable steps to get medical help for anyone who is hurt, report the accident to the police, and provide any necessary information. The police, in turn, can require the vehicle's owner to identify who was driving at the time.
The Right to Compensation: A Dual-Track Approach:
After the immediate medical crisis passes, attention will shift to the long road to recovery and financial survival. Indian law suggests two broad methods to be followed in assessing compensation that seek to strike a balance between the necessity of fast financial help and the necessity of awarding equitable damages commensurate with the overall loss.
Principle 1: No-Fault Liability (Section 164, MVA) - The Path to Expedited Relief:
This is a major shift from traditional law, where you have to prove someone was at fault. Under the 'no-fault' rule, you don't have to prove that the death or serious injury was caused by the driver's negligence. The simple fact that the accident involved a motor vehicle is enough.
The idea here is to get some money into the hands of the victim's family quickly, especially if they've just lost their only source of income. It's a way to get financial help without having to go through a long, complicated court battle to prove who was to blame. The 2019 amendment significantly increased the fixed compensation amounts under this rule:
₹5,00,000 in case of death.
₹2,50,000 in case of grievous hurt.
This provides a crucial, if modest, safety net right after a tragedy.
Principle 2: Fault-Based Liability (Section 166, MVA) - Claiming "Just Compensation" at the MACT:
This is the more traditional route. Under this principle, the victim or their family must go to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and prove that the accident was the direct result of the other driver's rash and negligent actions.
Unlike the no-fault option, there's no fixed limit on the compensation here. The MACT's job is to award what is "just and reasonable," which is calculated by looking at many factors: the victim's age and income, their future career prospects, how many people depended on them, medical bills, and the severity of the injury. This path can lead to a much larger compensation amount, but it also takes more time and requires more evidence.
A claim can be filed at the MACT in the area where the accident happened, where the victim lives, or where the driver or vehicle owner lives.
Special Focus: The Enhanced Compensation Scheme for Hit-and-Run Victims (Section 161, MVA):
The worst is when his killer is someone who drives away never to be caught, a 'hit-and-run'. The result is that the victim’s family is left with nobody to blame.
What does that actually mean? A 'hit-and-run' is legally defined as an accident where the vehicle involved cannot be identified even after reasonable efforts.
The law has a special scheme for these victims, and the 2019 amendment thankfully increased the compensation amounts eight-fold:
₹2,00,000 for death (up from a mere ₹25,000).
₹50,000 for grievous hurt (up from ₹12,500). The term 'grievous hurt' is defined under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
To manage these payments, the 2019 amendment also created a central Motor Vehicle Accident Fund. But even with these improvements, major problems persist. The biggest one seems to be that most people don't even know this scheme exists. The process itself, which involves filling out special forms and dealing with a Claims Enquiry Officer, can feel like a bureaucratic nightmare for a family that is already dealing with immense trauma.
THE JUDICIAL CALCULUS: HOW INDIAN COURTS DETERMINE "JUST COMPENSATION":
The law says victims should get "just compensation," but what does that actually mean in rupees and paise? The term is intentionally broad. Over the years, it has been the Supreme Court that has stepped in to create a more structured and, frankly, more humane system for calculating these awards.
Decoding the Multiplier Method: A Deep Dive into Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121:
Before 2009, compensation was a bit of a lottery. Different courts used different methods, and two people with very similar cases could walk away with wildly different amounts of money. The landmark Sarla Verma case aimed to fix this by creating a standard formula.
The core legal principle, or ratio decidendi, of Sarla Verma was to make the "multiplier method" the standard way to calculate the loss of future income. The Court broke it down into three clear steps:
Figure out the 'Multiplicand': First, you determine the deceased person's net annual income. Then, you have to subtract the money they would have spent on themselves. The Court created a standard for this: deduct one-third if there are 2–3 dependents, one-fourth for 4–6 dependents, and one-fifth for more than 6. What's left is the 'multiplicand'—the actual amount the family has lost per year.
Pick the 'Multiplier': This isn't just the number of years the person had left to work. It's a number from a standardized table created by the Court, based on the age of the person who died. This multiplier is designed to account for life's uncertainties and other economic factors.
Do the Math: Finally, you multiply the annual loss (the multiplicand) by the multiplier. The result is the total compensation for the loss of future earnings.
The Sarla Verma judgment was a turning point. It brought a much-needed dose of consistency and fairness to a system that was often unpredictable.
Accounting for the Future: The Ratio Decidendi of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680:
Sarla Verma was great leap, but it left one question a little fuzzy: what about ‘future prospects’? After all, for the majority of people, pay doesn’t remain stagnant through their lives, they receive raises and promotions. The Pranay Sethi judgment delivered by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court squarely addressed this issue.
The ratio decidendi of Pranay Sethi is that adding a sum for future prospects isn't optional; it's a required part of "just compensation." The Court even set a fixed scale for it:
For people with a permanent job:
Add 50% to the income if the deceased was under 40.
Add 30% if they were between 40 and 50.
Add 15% if they were between 50 and 60.
For the self-employed or those on a fixed salary:
Add 40% to the income if the deceased was under 40.
Add 25% if they were between 40 and 50.
Add 10% if they were between 50 and 60.
The Court also standardized payments for other losses, like loss of consortium (the loss of companionship) and funeral expenses, making the whole process even more predictable.
Valuing Every Life: Landmark Rulings on Compensation for Minors and Non-Earning Victims:
Among the trickiest questions for courts is how to place a value on the life of a child or home maker, who does not draw a salary. The courts have long rejected the notion that these lives have no economic worth.
A powerful recent example is the 2025 case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1123. The case involved an eight-year-old boy who was left with a 90% permanent disability after an accident. The lower courts had given him just ₹8.65 lakh.
The Supreme Court's ratio decidendi was a game-changer. It ruled that a minor child with a permanent disability cannot be treated as a 'non-earning' person. The Court said that to calculate the loss of his future income, one must use, at the very least, the minimum wage for a skilled workman in that state. And crucially, the Court added that the standard 40% for future prospects must be applied to this notional income. Based on this, the Supreme Court recalculated the compensation and increased it to a staggering ₹35.9 lakh. This ruling sends a clear message: a child's future potential has real value. The Court also put the responsibility on the insurance company to provide the tribunal with the correct minimum wage data in such cases.
THE BLAME GAME: DISTINGUISHING CONTRIBUTORY AND COMPOSITE NEGLIGENCE:
In fault-based claims, figuring out who is to blame is key. The law makes an important distinction here:
What does that actually mean?
Contributory Negligence: When the victim is partially responsible for the accident, or for how injured they were. Imagine a motorcyclist driving without a helmet, or a pedestrian attempting to dash across a busy highway. In these cases, the compensation can be reduced based on how much at fault the victim was. The burden is on the driver's side to prove this.
Composite Negligence: It is the condition where an accident is committed by the negligence of two or more people, whereas the victim is innocent. For instance, two drivers on opposite sides of the street crash into one another because both were negligent and a pedestrian standing on the pavement gets hurt. The victim can then obtain full reimbursement from any one wrongdoer. Their liability is "joint and several."
The Supreme Court explained this clearly in the 2015 case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273. It said that in cases of composite negligence, the victim doesn't have to figure out the exact percentage of blame for each driver. They can sue one or all of them and get their full compensation from whichever one they choose. It's up to the wrongdoers to sort out the blame amongst themselves later. It's also worth noting that courts are very hesitant to blame children for contributory negligence, recognizing that they don't have the same judgment as adults.
THE PROCEDURAL ROADMAP: NAVIGATING THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (MACT):
It’s one thing to know your rights; it’s another to collect compensation. This includes a legal process that relies on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), a special court that processes these cases more quickly than typical civil courts. But even this “faster” process can be like a marathon.
From FIR to Final Award: A Step-by-Step Guide:
Here’s a rough guide to how a claim usually proceeds:
Immediate Actions: The first things you do are critical. Call the police immediately to file a First Information Report (FIR), which is the cornerstone of any claim. You also need to inform the insurance company of the vehicle that caused the accident and, most importantly, get medical help for the injured.
Filing the Claim Petition: You have to file a formal application for compensation. One of the big changes in the 2019 law is that there's now a deadline: you must file the claim within six months of the accident.
Gathering Your Documents: You'll need a stack of paperwork to support your claim. The essentials usually include:
A copy of the FIR.
All medical records, hospital bills, and a disability certificate if applicable.
Proof of the victim's age and income (like salary slips or tax returns).
The Registration Certificate (RC) and insurance papers for the vehicles involved.
The driving license of the driver who caused the accident.
In fatal cases, the death certificate and proof that you are a legal heir.
The Tribunal Process: The MACT will send a notice to the other side—the driver, the vehicle owner, and their insurance company. They get to file a written response. The court then decides on the key legal questions (like, was there negligence? What's a fair compensation amount?). Both sides present their evidence and witnesses, and then the lawyers make their final arguments.
The Award: Finally, the MACT gives its judgment, which is called an 'Award'. It will state the total compensation amount, the interest to be paid, and who is liable to pay it—which, in most cases, is the insurance company.
The Role of Mandatory Third-Party Insurance (Section 146, MVA):
The whole system is built on the idea of mandatory third-party insurance.
What does that actually mean? Any vehicle on the road must have third party insurance by law. This policy insures the vehicle owner's liability in respect to death, injury or damage to property of any third party. A 'third party' is basically anyone who isn't the vehicle owner or the insurance company—so, pedestrians, passengers in other cars, even someone riding on the back of your own motorcycle. It's important to remember that this basic policy doesn't cover damage to your own car; for that, you need what's called a 'comprehensive' policy.
This mandatory insurance is a crucial social safety net. It ensures there's always a company with deep pockets—the insurer—to pay the victim, regardless of whether the driver who caused the accident has any money.
The Insurer's Liability: Understanding the "Pay and Recover" Principle:
Insurance companies often try to get out of paying by arguing that the vehicle owner broke a rule in the policy—maybe the driver had a fake license, was drunk, or was using a private car as a taxi. While this might be a valid issue between the insurance company and the car owner, the courts have consistently said that an innocent victim shouldn't have to suffer because of it.
To solve this, the Supreme Court came up with the "pay and recover" principle in the famous National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 case. The rule is simple: the insurance company must first pay the full compensation to the victim. After that, the company is free to go after the vehicle owner who broke the policy rules to get its money back. This ensures the victim gets their money without having to wait for the insurer and the owner to fight it out.
However, this doesn't mean the insurer is always on the hook. The Supreme Court has recently clarified that if the accident was entirely the victim's fault (making them a "self-tortfeasor"), their family can't claim compensation under a third-party policy. The policy is there to cover your liability to others, not to pay you for your own mistakes.
Despite the goal of being a speedy system, the MACT process can be a real grind. For families, especially those from poorer backgrounds, the maze of paperwork and court procedures can feel like a second trauma. The very system designed to help can end up adding to their financial and emotional stress. This is a critical gap between having rights and actually getting justice. Some places, like the Delhi High Court, have tried to create faster, more victim-friendly systems, and there's a push to adopt these models across the country.
PROTECTING THE VULNERABLE: SPECIFIC RIGHTS OF PEDESTRIANS AND PILLION RIDERS:
The law gives special attention to those who are most exposed on our roads.
The Pedestrian's Prerogative: The Fundamental Right to Safe Passage: Pedestrians are one of the most vulnerable groups out there. The Supreme Court has gone so far as to say that the right to a safe and clear footpath is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution—the right to life itself.
This isn't just a high-minded principle. The Rules of the Road Regulation, 1989, give pedestrians the right of way at cross walks and require drivers to slow down when they see one. The rules also make it illegal to drive or park on a footpath.
When it comes to compensation claims, this means the driver has a much higher duty of care. If a car hits a pedestrian, the burden is almost entirely on the driver to prove they were being careful. Courts are very unlikely to blame a pedestrian for contributory negligence unless they did something incredibly reckless, like suddenly jumping onto expressway.
Pillion Riders: Judicial Stance on Negligence and Compensation:
A person riding on the back of a two-wheeler is considered a 'third party' in an accident. This means they have a full right to claim compensation.
A common argument from insurance companies is that if there were two people on the back of a motorcycle (which is illegal under Section 128 of the MVA), it amounts to contributory negligence. They argue this should reduce the amount they have to pay. But the courts have been sceptical. They've generally held that just because the bike was overloaded doesn't automatically mean the riders were negligent. The insurance company has to prove that the act of carrying an extra person was a direct cause of the accident. Without that proof, the argument is usually rejected.
CRIMINAL CULPABILITY: THE PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA:
An accident doesn't just lead to a civil claim for money; it also starts a separate criminal case against the driver. This process is handled under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and its goal is to punish the wrongdoer, not to compensate the victim.
A Brief Examination of Key BNS Sections: The usual charges filed after a road accident include:
Section 281 (Rash driving or riding on a public way): his relates to driving in a manner that is likely to pose danger to human life and can garner up to six months in jail or fine. It supersedes the earlier Section 279 of the IPC.
Section 125(A) (Causing hurt by act endangering life): It is applied when a simple injury is caused by a rash act; punishment is up to six months in jail or a fine. This is no more than the old Section 337 of the IPC.
Section 125(B) (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life): This is for more severe injuries — for example a fracture — and the punishment can extend up to two years’ imprisonment. It repeals the former Section 338 of the IPC.
Section 106 (Causing death by negligence): This is in case of death. The punishment can be up to five years, but in specific hit-and-run cases, it can go up to ten years, plus a fine. This section is the new version of the old Section 304A of the IPC.
Understanding the Distinction: It's really important for victims to understand that the compensation claim and the criminal case are two completely separate things.
Purpose: The case at the MACT is a civil matter. Its only goal is to get compensation for the victim. The case in a criminal court is brought by the state (the police) and is about deciding if the driver is guilty of a crime and should be punished.
Standard of Proof: The level of proof needed is different. The prosecutor in a criminal case needs to prove the driver is guilty of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a high threshold to reach. In an MACT claim, all the victim has to do is prove that it is “more likely than not” that the driver was negligent — a much lesser burden.
Interdependence: The outcome of one case doesn't decide the other. A driver may be acquitted in a criminal court, but still be liable to pay compensation at the instance of the MACT.
CONCLUSION: THE ROAD FORWARD: CONNECTING RIGHTS ON PAPER TO JUSTICE ON THE GROUND:
There is no denying that laws protecting road accident victims in India, many of which were strengthened post the 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, have improved. On paper, the laws sound more compassionate and victim-centered. There’s a defined set of rights, from immediate medical care within the “Golden Hour” to a compensation system that attempts to be both fast and fair. The courts have also done their share, establishing better rules for just exactly what “just compensation” is.
But as anyone who has experienced the system can attest, a right on paper isn’t always a form of justice on the ground. Enforcing the 2019 law has been a battle. Since road safety is a combined responsibility of state and the federal governments, the new, tougher laws have run into resistance in some states, leading to a patchwork set of rules across the country. For the law to work, of course, it requires modern enforcement, such as electronic surveillance and an honest, well-trained police force — which remains an elusive goal in many of these jurisdictions.
The Biggest Challenge of All But perhaps the greatest challenge of all is faced by the victims themselves. For a family that has been torn apart by an accident in a case where they’re not wealthy or well-connected, the fight for justice is a brutal experience. Not only are they grieving and struggling economically; they are confronting a legal system that can be slow, inscrutable and intimidating. The wait, the reams of paperwork and simple unawareness about your rights can feel like a second accident.
Going forward, it is obvious that it takes more than good laws. It will require a government that’s serious about enforcement of the rules, that the courts will speed these things up and that all of us will have to work to ensure there is an awareness, so those victims are empowered to make a claim that should be theirs. The next big hurdle is making the reality on our roads match the law’s promise and that victims receive the justice and support they need.
REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS:
Q1: How long do I have to lodge a motor accident compensation claim?
Answer: The amendment has inserted a limitation for filing claim under Section 166 (fault-based liability) as Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. The claim petition has to be filed before the MACT within 6 months from the date of accident. Until this amendment, there was no statutory period of limitation for the presentation of these claims.
Q2: Can I file a claim if the dead was entirely at fault of the accident?
Answer: Often, no. Compensation for a victim is not maintainable on the ground of non-fault if such a victim is a "self tortfeasor," who is totally responsible for the wrong which resulted in an accident, as provided under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and on the principle of fault. The Supreme Court has held that third-party insurance is designed to pay the insured’s liability to strangers, not the insured to recoup its own losses.” But you can claim under the “Personal Accident Cover” part of your own comprehensive policy – it pays a fixed sum regardless of who was to blame.
Q3:What do I get if I incur a permanent disability but am still able to work?
Answer: Yes, there are various heads under which you can claim your compensation. The MACT will grant compensation for medical charges (past and future), pain and sufferings, and loss of amenities of life (for not being able to live life as earlier). Most importantly, even if you are able to continue to work. I have not lost the power to make a claim for loss of your “future earning capacity.” Instead, the tribunal looks at not just the physical disability percentage granted by doctors, but also the “functional disability” — how the specific injury takes a toll on your ability to do your job and daily activities. You will also be compensated for a loss in earning ability because of your disability using a multiplier technique.
Comments