MACT Appeals Pending For Years: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Reduce Adjournments, Directs Claimants To File Proof With Claims To Curb Delays
The Bench noted that bare claim petitions without supporting documents often lead to repeated adjournments; asked High Courts to prioritize appeals pending over four years and encouraged tribunals to adopt summary procedure.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court expressing concern over the prolonged pendency of motor accident compensation cases, noted that appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 remain pending for an average of 8 years in High Courts and 6 years before MACTs. To address the issue, the Court has issued a series of directions aimed at reducing adjournments and expediting the adjudication of compensation claims.
The Court observed that a significant cause of delay is the filing of bare claim petitions unsupported by necessary documents. As a result, claimants frequently seek adjournments to produce evidence, leading to prolonged proceedings and delayed compensation to victims and their families.
In the judgment holding that the homemakers are the true "Nation Builders", the Bench has observed that in motor accident claims involving the death of a homemaker, a separate, substantive head of "Loss of Domestic Care" must be mandatorily factored into the final computation of compensation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “…An analysis of the data gathered in terms of the orders passed in appeal by this Court, reveals that the average pendency in the High Courts is approximately 8 years and before the Tribunals the same is approximately 6 years. Numerous reasons can be ascribed for this situation. We need not get into specifics, but we may only observe from our own experiences that the pendency before the Tribunals if often attributable to the fact that bare claim petitions are filed without the requisite documents/proof to back up the claim that has been demanded. Naturally, adjournments would be sought before the Tribunals to furnish such documents as such we direct that all those heads such as those illustrated below, when claimed shall be accompanied by proof”.
To curb such delays, the Court directed the following:
- Age is an absolute essential factor in determination of compensation. Official proof of Date of Birth excluding Aadhar Card, be annexed.
- In a case of disability, certificate in that regard issued by a competent doctor expressly recording the percentage of disability suffered be attached as also, the opinion of the said doctor regarding functional disability if any.
- If a particular income is claimed and ITRs/salary slips issued by employer under Stamp and seal/ certificate of salary issued by employer under Stamp and seal are available, they must necessarily be filed.
- If compensation is claimed under the head of medical expenses, bills duly attested by the competent authority of the clinic/hospital/nursing homes be attached.
- If attendant charges are claimed and such a person is already in employment, a notarized affidavit, disclosing salary paid to them, per month, be appended.
Advocate Karan Dewan appeared for the appellant and Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR appeared or the respondent.
The Court noted that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to secure just and fair compensation, objectives that are undermined when cases remain pending for years. Accordingly, it requested Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure that motor accident compensation appeals pending for more than four years are listed and heard on a priority basis according to their age.
“Delay in expeditious disposal of cases is not only a feature at the High Court level but also at the Tribunal. It is our hope that, by virtue of the directions issued above to append necessary documents, delay to some extent on account of adjournments for such purposes would be curbed. It is noted that Section 169 of the Act provides the option to the Tribunals to adopt a ‘summary procedure as it thinks fit’. True it is that adopting a summary procedure is not a compulsion, it would be in the favour of expediency if reasons are recorded by the Tribunals for not choosing to adopt such procedure. If it is adopted where possible it would go a long way in ensuring that the deserved compensation reaches the claimants as soon as possible. The same be strictly enforced”, the Bench observed.
The directions form part of a broader effort by the Court to tackle systemic delays in motor accident compensation litigation and ensure timely access to justice for accident victims and their families.
“The learned Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to issue necessary directions to have matters that have remained pending for the longest amount of time, listed according to the date of institution of the appeal, before the appropriate benches. The average taken for such purposes is any case that has remained pending for more than four years. For clarity, it may be stated that if matter ‘a’ has been pending for eight and a half years and ‘b’ has been pending for four years, ‘a’ will be listed first”, the Bench further directed.
Cause Title: Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Ors. v. Surjeet & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 634)
Appellant: Karan Dewan, Kartik Yadav, Aanchal Jain, AOR, Advocates.
Respondent: Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR, K.K. Bhat, Amit Kumar Singh, AOR, K. Enatoli Sema, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newma, Advocates.