PIL in Bombay High Court Challenges Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019

The petitioner is an association of lawyers practicing at the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) in Mumbai. The petitioner contends that the amended Act has brought several changes detrimental to the interests of victims of road accidents and their families.

On period of limitation, the petition states that the government is depriving poor victims of road accidents from claiming compensation by imposing 6 months limitation period and by not providing any provision for condonation of delay.

The petition further states that the limited liability of insurance companies in the amendment Act is contradictory to the nature and object of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The petitioner argues that the amendment Act places a restriction on the rights of victims to get just, fair and reasonable fair compensation and that the Act has minimized the claims procedure at the detriment of equitable justice.

On omission of Chapter X of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 relating to 'No Fault', the petition states that the omission of the entire chapter implies that there would be no immediate relief to the victims of vehicular accident.

The petitioner also claims that insertion of Section 2B was a grave error. For context, Section 2B provides that Central Government may exempt certain types of mechanically propelled vehicles from the application of the provisions of the Act in order to promote innovation, research and development in the fields of vehicular engineering, mechanically propelled vehicles and transportation in general. It is argued that this provision may leave the victims of accidents caused by such exempted vehicles remediless.

The petitioner thus prays for the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 to be declared unconstitutional and to be set-aside.

On Wednesday, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar heard the matter. The counsel for the petitioner stressed on Section 2B and argued that exempting electric vehicles which may not have number plate or third party insurance, will be a disadvantage to victim of any accident.

The Court however orally remarked that the provision prima facie does not appear to be wrong and questioned the petitioner if such vehicles have been exempt from any rules.

The CJ asked, “There is nothing wrong with this provision prima facie… If you find anything wrong with the conditions prescribed, if it is prone to misuse, then you can of course challenge the conditions. Whether any conditions have been prescribed under Section 2B?...If they have not, how are they exempted?”

The Court thus directed the Union of India to file an affidavit on whether any prescription as per the newly inserted Section 2B of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 has been framed or not.

The Court posted the matter on 11 December.

Case title: Bar Association of MACT, Mumbai Through General Secretary Shantaram Baban Gadge vs. Union Of India (PIL(L)/22297/2022)