Tribunal Seeks Centre's Help to Compensate Cyclist's Family in Uninsured Vehicle Case

Calling it a "policy vacuum," the Tribunal has sought the assistance of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to examine whether any government scheme can provide relief to the victim's family in such exceptional circumstances.

In an order dated January 31, the Judge (MACT) Abhilash Malhotra of the Patiala House Courts was dealing with two connected claim petitions arising out of an FIR registered at PS South Campus, Delhi.

The Tribunal noted that the victim, Surender Kumar Ahirwar, was a cyclist who lost his life after being hit by a car. As per the charge sheet, the car was being driven by Vishnu, who also died after losing control of the vehicle and crashing into a pole. Consequently, both the cyclist and the driver of the offending vehicle succumbed to injuries in the same accident.

The court recorded that the deceased cyclist is survived by his wife and two minor children, who are the claimants in the present proceedings. It further noted that the offending vehicle was uninsured at the time of the accident. Though directions had earlier been issued to auction the vehicle, the Tribunal observed that the car, registered in 2014, was unlikely to fetch any substantial amount to meaningfully compensate the victim's family.

The parents of the deceased driver appeared before the court and submitted that they are poor, live in a jhuggi, and have not inherited any property or estate from their son. In view of these submissions, the Tribunal observed that there was no attachable property available from the driver's side to satisfy any award of compensation.

The Tribunal also took note of a report submitted by the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority (NDDLSA), which clarified that compensation under its schemes is limited to hit-and-run cases where an untraced report is filed by the police. Since the present case involved identified parties, it did not qualify for relief under those provisions.

Accepting the submissions of the claimant's counsel, the court further observed that the case was not covered under the Cashless Treatment of Road Accident Victims Scheme, 2025 or the Scheme for Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents, 2021.

The Tribunal agreed that the existing statutory and welfare frameworks do not address situations where the driver-cum-owner of an uninsured vehicle dies in the same accident and leaves behind no estate.

"In these peculiar circumstances, the assistance of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways is necessary," the Tribunal held, emphasising that families of road accident victims cannot be denied support merely due to gaps in policy coverage.

Accordingly, the court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, with a request to depute a representative to assist the Tribunal. The Ministry has been asked to apprise the court on the next date of hearing whether any existing policy or benevolent scheme of the Union government can be extended to compensate the victim's family. The matter has been listed for further proceedings on February 27.

- ANI