For thousands of families seeking compensation after road accidents, the wait for justice has become a second ordeal. Taking note of prolonged delays in motor accident compensation cases across the country, the Supreme Court has laid down a set of measures designed to speed up proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and appellate courts.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh observed that compensation disputes under the Motor Vehicles Act—legislation intended to provide swift and fair relief—are often trapped in years of litigation. After examining more than 100 accident compensation matters that reached the apex court, the judges found that claims typically remain pending for nearly six years before Tribunals, while appeals spend an average of eight years in High Courts.
The Court warned that such delays undermine the very purpose of a welfare-oriented law. Compensation intended to support victims and bereaved families loses much of its value when it arrives years, or even decades, after the tragedy.
To reduce avoidable adjournments, the Court directed claimants to file all relevant supporting material along with their petitions wherever applicable. Age-related proof must be submitted in every case, though Aadhaar cards will not suffice for this purpose. Disability claims should include certificates issued by competent medical professionals detailing both the extent of disability and its functional impact.
Where claimants rely on a specific income figure, documents such as salary slips, income tax returns, or employer-certified salary records should accompany the petition. Medical expenditure claims must be supported by authenticated bills, while claims seeking reimbursement for attendant expenses should include a notarised affidavit specifying the attendant’s remuneration.
The Court also turned its attention to mounting backlogs in High Courts. It requested Chief Justices across the country to ensure that MACT appeals are listed according to age, with the oldest matters receiving priority. Appeals pending for more than four years should be taken up on an urgent basis, the Bench said, making it clear that an eight-year-old appeal must take precedence over one pending for four years.
Recognising the scale of the backlog, the Court further suggested that High Courts evaluate whether additional benches dedicated to motor accident compensation matters are necessary.
At the Tribunal stage, the Bench emphasised wider use of the summary procedure contemplated under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While tribunals are not legally bound to adopt this route in every case, the judges said reasons should be recorded whenever they choose not to do so. According to the Court, greater reliance on summary proceedings could significantly shorten litigation and ensure that deserving claimants receive compensation without unnecessary delay.
The directions emerged while deciding an appeal that itself reflected the problem. The case had been filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2004 but reached a conclusion only towards the end of 2024.
Court records revealed that a devastating fire in 2011 damaged or destroyed thousands of files, including records connected to the case. Yet the Bench questioned whether the incident alone could explain the extraordinary passage of time. It noted that the matter had already spent seven years in the High Court before the fire occurred and remained unresolved for another 14 years thereafter.
The judges pointed to administrative records showing that thousands of cases affected by the fire were still awaiting reconstruction or intervention by counsel. They questioned whether rebuilding court files could reasonably consume such an extended period.
The Bench observed that delays of this magnitude cast a shadow over institutions responsible for protecting legal rights. In compensation matters, the consequences are particularly severe because the claimants are often families coping with the loss of a breadwinner or individuals dealing with life-altering injuries.
The Court underscored that no monetary award can truly replace a loved one. However, the concept of “just and fair compensation” requires the legal system to place victims and their families, as far as possible, in the financial position they would have occupied had the accident never occurred. When the process stretches across two decades, the hardship only deepens.
Describing the overall picture as deeply concerning, the Court noted that nearly half of the cases reviewed involved High Court delays exceeding four years. It stressed that courts must remain alert to the dangers of prolonged pendency, especially when interest accumulated during litigation begins to form a significant portion of the final compensation award.
The ruling serves as both a warning and a roadmap—highlighting how procedural delays have eroded the promise of timely relief and outlining practical steps to restore speed and efficiency to accident compensation litigation.
