Delhi High Court’s Decision on MACT’s Jurisdiction
The Delhi High Court has clarified that Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) are not authorized to adjudicate disputes related to contractual entitlements under personal insurance policies. This decision was rendered by Justice Anish Dayal in a case involving a fatal car accident where the victim was driving his father’s vehicle.
Case Background
In the incident, which occurred in 2022, the car driven by the deceased was hit by an unidentified truck, leading to a hit-and-run scenario. Unable to locate the truck or its driver to establish liability, the victim’s mother sought compensation from the car’s insurer through MACT. Her claim was dismissed by MACT, prompting her to appeal to the High Court.
High Court’s Ruling
On July 1, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the case revolved around contractual disputes within a personal insurance policy, rather than a third-party insurance claim. Justice Dayal noted that extending MACT’s jurisdiction to such cases would be an unreasonable expansion of its statutory mandate as per the Motor Vehicles Act.
Justice Dayal highlighted that the specialized function of tribunals like MACTs is confined to specific statutory limits and cannot be expanded to encompass all types of claims. The decision underscored the necessity of maintaining the integrity of MACT’s designated role in motor vehicle accident jurisprudence.
Insurance Policy Details
The victim’s mother argued that her son, as an occupant of the car, should be considered a third party under the insurance policy. However, the insurance company clarified that their policy was comprehensive, covering basic third-party liabilities, personal accident cover for the owner-driver, and additional cover for passengers. The court found the mother’s claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act unsustainable as negligence could not be established due to the untraced truck.
More Read
Contractual Nature of the Claim
The court observed that the claim had shifted to a contractual context, which MACT, being a statutory body, cannot address. Justice Dayal advised the mother to pursue her claim directly with the insurance company, suggesting that if her claim is denied, she could seek recourse through a consumer forum or another competent judicial platform.
Legal Representation
Advocates Varun Sarin and Parul Dutta represented the deceased’s mother, with Amicus Curiae Dr. Amit George assisting the court. Advocate Dushyant Kishan Kaul appeared for the deceased’s father, while Advocate Sameer Nandwani represented the insurance company.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the delineated roles and limitations of specialized tribunals like MACT, aiming to preserve their focus on swiftly addressing third-party claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
[Read Judgment]
