What a Motor Accident Claim Is

In one line

A motor accident claim is a statutory claim for compensation before a Tribunal, arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, and it has replaced the ordinary civil suit.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: a claim for compensation for an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle is made to a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165, and by section 175 no civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such a claim where a Tribunal has been constituted for that area; the claim may be founded on fault, that is, on the negligence of the driver, or on the statutory no-fault provision, and the expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" is construed widely.

The three ways compensation is claimed

1. On proof of fault. The ordinary claim: the claimant proves that the driver was negligent, and the owner is vicariously liable, and the insurer must satisfy the award. This is the route to full compensation, assessed as "just compensation" under section 168.

2. Without proof of fault. The statutory no-fault claim, now section 164, which gives fixed sums for death and grievous hurt with no inquiry into negligence at all. Chapter [Liability without Fault] works it out.

3. Where the vehicle is never identified. The hit and run scheme, sections 161 to 163, worked in chapter [Hit and Run, and the Golden Hour].

The bar on the civil court

Section 175 provides that where a Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Tribunal in respect of such a claim shall be granted by a civil court.

So the Tribunal is not an alternative to the civil court; where it exists, it is the only forum.

"Arising out of the use of a motor vehicle"

This is the phrase that decides jurisdiction, and it is read widely.

Facts. Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530, decided on 17 July 1991. A petrol tanker collided with a truck, went off the road and overturned. About four hours later the petrol that had leaked caught fire and exploded, killing and injuring a large number of people who had gathered near the tanker, many of them collecting the leaking petrol.

Held. The expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" is wider than "caused by" the vehicle, and covers an accident having a causal relation with the use of the vehicle even where it occurs some time after the vehicle has come to rest. The explosion and fire were part of the same incident as the collision and overturning, so the claims arose out of the use of the tanker.