Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh high court has expressed strong displeasure with a judicial officer handling a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) case, observing that their ruling showed a total “failure to apply mind” and a “lack of basic knowledge” of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Allowing an appeal filed by an insurance company, a single-judge bench of justice Sushil Kukreja, in an order dated October 29, pulled up the officer—who currently serves as a district and sessions judge—for passing a mechanical award. Emphasising that the district judiciary is the backbone of the justice system, the high court noted that such errors cannot be tolerated.
The court directed the officer to undergo a refresher course and periodic training in MACT matters at the HP State Judicial Academy. It also ordered the registrar general to place a copy of the judgment in the officer’s service record and forward another to the academy director.
“Since the occupant of a private car is a gratuitous passenger and does not fall within the definition of a third party, the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation unless an additional premium was paid,” justice Kukreja observed. “The tribunal ought to have exonerated the insurance company, but erroneously held it liable to indemnify the owner.”
Calling the approach “highly objectionable,” the Bench noted: “It is quite shocking that the judicial officer adjudicated the case by taking into consideration an insurance policy which had no relevance... The officer is not even aware of the difference between an act/liability-only policy and a comprehensive/package policy.”
{{/usCountry}}Calling the approach “highly objectionable,” the Bench noted: “It is quite shocking that the judicial officer adjudicated the case by taking into consideration an insurance policy which had no relevance... The officer is not even aware of the difference between an act/liability-only policy and a comprehensive/package policy.”
{{/usCountry}}The Bench added: “Judicial orders cannot be allowed to be passed in a mechanical manner. Such tendencies must be deprecated and cannot be allowed to perpetuate.”
Two critical lapses
On December 30, 2016, a 44-year-old painter, Trharu (alias Keshav), died after the private car he was travelling in fell into a field near Sundernagar in Mandi district. His wife and son filed a claim seeking ₹50 lakh, alleging rash and negligent driving.
On August 16, 2023, the MACT awarded ₹13,93,100 with 6% annual interest, holding the vehicle owner and insurer jointly and severally liable. The insurer subsequently challenged the order in the high court, arguing that its policy was an ‘act only’ policy that did not cover occupants of a private vehicle.
Upon review, the high court identified two critical lapses: The judicial officer based the award on an expired policy (valid from September 2015 to September 2016), ignoring the separate policy active on the date of the crash. Secondly, the active policy was strictly a third-party liability policy with no extra premium paid to cover passengers.
Modifying the tribunal’s award, the high court exonerated the insurance company from liability.