New Delhi: Flagging the delay of over 20 years caused by the system, and stating that it requires “introspection” to equip itself for making early decisions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted significant relief to a man who was brutally injured by a truck driver in 2005, leading to his erectile dysfunction.
Awarding him compensation worth over Rs one crore (Rs 1,31,47,200), a bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, “The injured victim has been deprived of just compensation for more than two decades (over 24 years), the awarding of which is the primary objective of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”
Unfortunately, the responsibility for such a delay cannot be fixed on anyone except the system, which requires assessment to equip itself for making early or expeditious decisions, especially in cases involving painful or sensitive subject matters, the court added in its 14 February ruling.
Speaking to ThePrint, Chandigarh-based advocate Ashwani Arora, who represented the accident victim, said, “It is not greed but the need that requires consideration in such cases. The court has passed a reasoned order which will help the victim for life. Earlier, the claims tribunal had awarded over seven lakh rupees as compensation in this case, which was paid by the insurance company, but the court increased this amount significantly, imposing an interest rate of nine percent per annum and taking into consideration not just the extent of the man’s injuries but also the prolonged delay caused by the system and the increased cost of treatment.”
However, Arora also clarified that “interest is conditional at different rates depending upon the time consumed by the insurance company while depositing the amount”.
The injured victim’s lawyer also told ThePrint that although the present appeal against the tribunal order was filed in 2005 and initially appeared before a division bench of the court around 2007, which at the time used to admit such cases, it subsequently made its way to the Lok Adalat in 2009 and ultimately landed before a single-judge bench of the High Court.
Also Read: Why SC collegium rejected Centre’s ‘CPI(M) sympathiser’ counter to appointment of Kerala HC judge
The journey of the case was mired by delays and procedural lags, which were further aggravated by an unwillingness on the part of the high court’s judges to consider such Motor Vehicles Act cases seriously, Arora said.
“Courts are often reluctant to seriously consider MV Act cases due to factors such as the large backlog of cases before them and other important matters to attend to. They are often of the view that if the tribunal has already awarded compensation, there is no urgency in taking up those matters on a priority basis. However, the way Justice Vashisth handled this case and gave the victim his due is rather commendable and a breath of fresh air,” he said.
The incident occurred in 2000, and initially, the case came before the claims tribunal, which ordered, in September 2004, that the injured victim must be compensated with Rs 7,62,000, with interest at the rate of nine percent per annum.
Due to the dissatisfaction of the parties with the compensation amount, the accident victim filed the present plea before the court, which was taken up in August 2005. From then, no decision was taken by the court, on one pretext or another.
In 2009, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, an alternative dispute redressal mechanism. Essentially, a Lok Adalat is a forum where disputes or cases pending in courts of law or stuck at the pre-litigation stage are settled or compromised amicably.
Despite “making the best of efforts”, a compromise could not be reached, probably because the insurance company did not agree with the amount proposed by the claimant, the court noted in this case.
Another fact pointed out by the court that contributed to the delay was that “at one point in time, the record was burnt,” and the case file had to be reconstructed due to a fire in the court registry in 2011. “This led to a delay of approximately six more months,” Arora told ThePrint.
Essentially, the case moved from the claims tribunal to the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s two-judge bench, to the Lok Adalat, and finally landed before a single-judge bench of the High Court.
Between 2020 and 2025, the case changed hands a total of eight times, moving from one single-judge bench to another. It had to travel all the way from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu to Justice Anil Kshetarpal, to Justice Meenakshi Mehta, to Justice Alok Jain, to Justice Harimran Singh Sethi, to Justice Amarjot Bhatti, to Justice Ritu Tagore, before finally making its way to Justice Vashisth.
What was the case?
In the present case, the claimant, or injured victim, had been fighting for compensation for over two decades, or 24 years.
When he was only 16 years old, the man was hit by a truck driver named Sukhbir, who was driving in a grossly rash and negligent manner, the court noted.
On 18 June 2000, the victim was sitting on the back of a bicycle when they were crashed into by a speeding truck coming from the opposite direction, on the wrong side. As a result, both riders fell and sustained serious injuries, leading them to be hospitalised.
It was also noted by the court that when the matter came before the claims tribunal in Chandigarh, neither the truck driver nor the vehicle owner appeared, nor did they send their lawyers.
The insurance company had also denied the victim’s plea, citing the absence of a valid driving licence for the truck driver at the time of the accident. However, the court pegged this as an attempt to evade liability for compensating the victim.
After examining a total of five witnesses in the case, the court concluded that the injured victim had suffered severe injuries as a result of the collision, including a crushed and amputated left foot, multiple long bone fractures, along with injuries to his pelvis, intestine, anal canal, urinary bladder, and rectum, among others.
One of the doctors in the case also told the court that the injured victim’s “overall normal life and other normal activities of the patient, like sexual activities, etc., would definitely get affected due to erectile dysfunction associated with pelvic fracture and urethral injury.”
Why was the 1988 Act passed?
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was passed to consolidate and amend the laws relating to motor vehicles. It replaced the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and aimed to provide prompt and efficient remedies to victims of motor accidents by granting them compensation. Notably, the Act allowed for filing an application before a claims tribunal, as opposed to going to court directly, which also requires a court fee.
Section 165 of the MV Act, 1988, allows certain motor accident claims to be filed before the tribunal for specified areas, for the purpose of adjudicating these claims and awarding compensation for accidents “involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party,” or both.
What the court ruled
Recalling the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur, where it stated that the 1988 Act clearly indicates that compensation must be just and cannot be a “bonanza”, a “source of profit,” or a “pittance”, the High Court pointed out the Supreme Court’s direction reminding courts and tribunals of their noble duties.
Applying these principles to the present case, the court noted there was “ample medical evidence available” that after suffering from disability and amputation of the lower limb, the patient had faced immense difficulty over the last 24 years and was deserving of compensation.
Finally, citing the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in G. Ravindranath vs. E. Srinivas, where compensation was granted for loss of marital bliss due to injuries, the court ruled that the victim was entitled to receive compensation as there was “ample loss of amenities and marital prospects.”
(Edited by Radifah Kabir)