Bombay High Court: While hearing an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), where the appeal had to wait for 15 years to come up for admission, a Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., highlighted the serious delays in disposal of motor accident claims and appeals, stressing that victims often wait years before receiving compensation. Referring to the Supreme Court’s recommendation in Rasmita Biswal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 767, the Court urged the Union Government to consider setting up a specialised Appellate Tribunal for motor accident and railway claims to ensure speedy justice. The Court also upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the vehicle was validly insured and dismissed the appeal.
Background
The appeal was filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order dated 19 October 2011 passed by the Tribunal awarding Rs 74,422 to the claimant for injuries sustained in an accident on 19 October 1996. The Insurance Company contended that the policy had expired on 26 August 1996, and therefore no liability could be imposed upon it.
The Tribunal framed issues and examined the evidence, including records from the Regional Transport Office (RTO). The Tribunal concluded that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the vehicle was not insured, and on the contrary, the evidence showed that the vehicle was validly insured.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that the Tribunal had elaborately discussed the issue and had given a finding that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the vehicle was not insured with them. On the contrary, the evidence led by the Insurance Company and the RTO, which was produced by the applicant, showed that the vehicle was validly insured.
The Court further highlighted that it is a known fact that the claimants do not get compensation immediately on the date of the accident, but have to file their claim before the Tribunal. Because of the huge pendency, the Tribunal takes at least 5 to 7 years to dispose of the original petition, and even after disposing of the petition, the claimants do not see the colour of the compensation, since the orders passed by the Tribunal are subject to challenge by filing an appeal to the High Court.
The Court noted that the huge pendency in the High Court results in these appeals being disposed of after at least 8 to 10 years from the date of filing, and this again results in severe prejudice to the claimants. The Court observed that most of the claims involved in these appeals filed in the High Court run into a few lakhs only, and almost 97 per cent of the appeals involve amounts less than Rs 10 lakhs. Similarly, 99 per cent of the appeals under the Railways Act, 1989 (Railways Act) are preferred by victims, and the maximum amount of compensation is only Rs 8 lakhs.
The Court further emphasised that in the State of Maharashtra itself, around 86,000 original petitions were pending before the Tribunal as of April 2026, and around 18,000 appeals were pending before the Bombay High Court, 12,500 appeals before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, 14,500 appeals before the Telangana High Court, and 34,000 appeals before the Kerala High Court, etc.
The Court observed that in the answer to a question raised in the Rajya Sabha on 17 March 2026, it was stated by the Department of Financial Services under the Ministry of Finance that during Financial Year 2024-2025, 10,73,020 claims were pending before the Tribunal involving a whopping Rs 96,257 crores. The Court highlighted that at least 30-40 per cent of these claims, if not more, would be challenged in appeal, which would be close to 5,00,000 involving at least Rs 40,000 crores. These figures, the Court noted, justify setting up a specialised Appellate Tribunal to deliver timely and speedy justice, which is the constitutional right of the claimants. Further, appeals from orders of the Appellate Forum should meet a very high standard for interference by the superior court.
The Court noted that the Union of India should consider, keeping in mind the object for which compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) is granted, whether an alternate Appellate Forum can be constituted for challenging the orders of the Tribunal. The Court observed that such an Appellate Tribunal would be a specialised body and would be in a position to dispose of appeals in a much shorter span of time than what is generally taken by the High Court. This step would achieve the object for which the provisions of compensation are engrafted in the MV Act. Further, the said Appellate Forum could also hear appeals from the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railways Act and should be headed by a retired High Court Judge.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Rasmita Biswal (supra), which recommended setting up Motor Vehicle Appellate Tribunals. The Court remarked that the functioning of tribunals has been successfully tested in our country over a period of more than 50 years while dealing with appeals under various other enactments, e.g., Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), National Consumer Disputes Appellate Forum (NCDAF), Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), etc. The Court emphasised that it is high time that the Union of India should consider setting up an Appellate Tribunal for resolving disputes arising from the orders passed by the Court of first instance, instead of appeals to the High Court.
Decision
The Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Consequently, the connected civil applications did not survive and were disposed of. The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Finance Ministry for appropriate consideration on setting up of an Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from orders passed by the Motor Accident and the Railway Claims Tribunal.
[Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sandeep Sunder Kolhe, First Appeal (ST.) No. 35338 of 2012, decided on 22-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Devendranath S. Joshi