Motor Vehicles Act of 1998 allows an individual injured in a motor vehicle accident, or their legal representatives, to claim damages. The Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 was created to prevent motor vehicle accidents, compensate victims, and punish those responsible in the event of one. There is no deadline for filing a claim. The Tribunal may have reservations if you try to claim compensation for a prolonged period. Therefore, although there is no deadline for filing a compensation claim, it should be done as soon as possible.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

Motor Accident Claim Tribunal was established to resolve disputes under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1998. The Claims Tribunal’s primary goal is to ensure cases are heard quickly and justice is served. The claimant must submit their claim promptly. Claims Tribunal appeals are subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts. All requests must be filed within 90 days from the date of the judgment. If the claimant fails to file his appeal within the time the Court allows, he must give a plausible explanation. If the Court grants permission, the request will be heard. If the amount in dispute is less than Rs 10,000/, the appeal will be denied. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal oversees cases involving personal injury, property damage, death, and death. Claims can be submitted through the Motor accidents Lawyer to the appropriate Claims Tribunal. High courts in different states oversee these Tribunals.

The Act of 1988: Penalties and offenses

According to Section 165(1), the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the Claims Tribunal can grant claims to claimants in these situations:

• An accident in which a person is killed or injured.
• Property of a third party is damaged or destroyed by an accident
• These accidents can occur because of the driving of a car

In National Insurance Company Limited. v. Pranay, the Supreme Court set guidelines for determining how much compensation an offender should pay self-employed accident victims, have a regular income, or have a fixed wage. The Court believes “just compensation” should be fair, reasonable, and equitable.

These parameters were established in response to Sarla Verma’s decision in Sarla v. Delhi Transport Corporation

• 50% would be added to the deceased’s annual salary if he had a steady job and was between 40 and 50 years old.
• No inclusion would be possible if the deceased were over 50 years old.
• The deceased person’s income was considered if he had a fixed income or was self-employed at his death.

Pranay Sethi later discussed this issue of compensation in the case of a death in a car accident. It was decided that a death victim who held a permanent job would not be eligible for an additional payment. It should also be extended to other people. The Court stated that the Court cannot accept the idea that self-employed persons are likely to stay stationary and their income will remain constant. This is against the fundamental concept of human behavior. The Court also stated that Claim Tribunals may use different methods of evaluating claims. This needs to be more uniform. In order to assess the foreseeable future of victims of car accidents, it is important to apply the “principle if standardization” when assessing compensation. A new group was established for those who were self-employed or receive a regular income.

The claimant must prove that the respondent was negligent. It is essential to show that the respondent is legally responsible for his actions and that he is at fault. It is difficult to define negligence in a court of law. Negligence would be defined as an omission by a rational person on grounds that are not normal for him or that he is legally bound to do.

The Supreme Court defines “rashness” as “risking dangerous or reckless acts with the knowledge it may cause serious injury.” In such cases, it is illegal to commit such conduct with negligence or carelessness. “Negligence” was defined by the Supreme Court as “inability to act with reasonable and responsible measures conferred by the considerations that ordinarily govern human affairs or doing something that prudent and prudent means guided based on similar considerations would not.”

Conclusion

This is because payment must be made in case of death for a child even if the child does not earn anything and may still study. Parents cannot expect to depend solely on their children for such matters. The parents will still suffer the loss of their child, and they will be compensated fairly. In R.K. Malik v Kiran Paul, the Supreme Court ruled that financial damages should not be allowed. However, claims for the child’s future prospects should still be allowed. The Court granted significant claims in the case of Lata Walhwa v. State of Bihar. This was where many people, including children were, were killed in an accident on March 3, 1989.

The Court stated categorically that all the children who died were attending an expensive school or college, had good prospects and were from upper-middle class families. However, higher claims cannot be said not to have been for the adversity in life or the pain and suffering suffered as a consequence of financial ruin. The multiplier method was used to accept its use. In the case of children aged 5-10 years, the Court awarded Rs. 1.50 lakhs towards pecuniary damages and Rs.50,000 towards conventional compensation. Children aged between 10 and 18 years were awarded Rs.4.10 lakhs, which includes “conventional compensation.”

The general public is helped by legislation. Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 was created to prevent accidents. It is an important law and must be enforced. The government and the public have to work together to ensure its success. Each person must make sure he doesn’t violate its provisions. An accident can result from an individual’s behavior.