Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union of India (Supreme Court)
We have perused the report dated 21.10.2021 submitted by Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned Additional Solicitor General in compliance of our order dated 03.08.2021 and he has made certain suggestions. He has also sought directions from this Court. We consider it appropriate to issue the following directions:
i) A format for payment advised for remittance of compensation has been devised and followed in the Madras High Court and the Rajasthan High Court and the same is extracted from the judgment of the Madras High Court in Divisional Manager vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913, dated 11.03.2021. We thus direct that the same format will be followed across the country;
ii) A linked issue pointed out by Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned Amicus Curiae is that the amounts deposited in the Tribunals are being credited in savings account with the result that there is accrued interest which keeps lying unattended. The suggestion is that the amount should be credited to a current account. We, however, do not agree with this solution but are of the view that the amounts should continue to be credited with the savings account to earn interest but we deem it appropriate to issue a general direction that where ever orders are passed for disbursement of compensation to the beneficiaries, any such interest would enure to the benefit of the beneficiaries and would follow the principal amount;
iii) In order to put the liability of the insurance company to an end, on deposit of the amount, the insurance company/depositor will communicate the factum of the deposit forthwith/expeditiously to the concerned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal with a copy to the beneficiary;
iv) As far as the aspect of the issuance of certificate on disability of victims is concerned, it is reiterated that the guidelines laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 mandatorily must be followed by the MACTs, in respect of loss of income due to injury/disablement. The District Medical Board is also directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India vide Gazette Notification S. No. 61, dated 05.01.2018, for issuance of disability Certificate in order to bring Pan India uniformity. The consequence is that the MACT would ascertain that permanent disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board or body authorized by it is in accordance with the Gazette Notification alone. Once the certificate is issued in this manner, the same can be marked for purposes of being taken into consideration as evidence without the necessity of summoning the concerned witness to give formal proof of the documents unless there is some reason for suspicion on the document;
v) The aspect of disparity in the Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) certificate in Motor Accident Claims, wherein from 10% to 20% dependent on whether the claimants have a Pan Card or not can be redressed by a direction that the Legal Services Authority or any Agency/Mediation Group should assist the claimant for obtaining a Pan Card, where the claimant does not have one, in order to avoid 20% deduction of tax at source. The format of the applications for compensation and motor accidents claims is being modified by inserting the relevant column just after the requirement to set out whether the claimant is income tax assessee or not and whether the claimant has a Pan Card or not and in case has a Pan Card to provide the Pan No. and in case the application is so pending, to provide the application/Reference No. The formats of the applications across the country be suitably amended to facilitate this process.
Learned Additional Solicitor General appears to have addressed a communication in the larger context to the Finance Minister and we would expect the Finance Ministry to bestow urgent consideration on the same;
vi) On the issue of the direction passed on 03.2021 for circulation of those directions to the local Police stations, MACT Courts to improve the efficiency, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that on verification, it is found that only 13 States have complied with the same. There are 22 non-complying States and Union Territories in this behalf which are as under :
