Case Name: S.Rajaseekaran Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) NO. 295 OF 2012
Date: January 08, 2025
Quorum: Justice Abhay S. Oka
FACTS OF THE CASE
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, S. Rajaseekaran, before the Supreme Court of India, deliberating on the sensibly important issue of cashless treatment of victims of motor vehicle accidents. The petition stated that the application of Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) should have taken place on or before April 1, 2022. The provision was aimed at establishing a scheme for cashless treatment whereby medical attention could be provided readily within the golden hour, or the critical hour soon after a traumatic injury, in order to prevent deadly fatalities.
Despite this express statutory obligation, the Central Government has failed to frame a scheme as yet. The petition seeks direction from the Court to operationalize the statute with a view that it retains life saving potential when it comes to emergencies.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
- Whether delay on the part of the Central Government in conceiving a scheme for cashless treatment under Section 162 amounts to violation of the statutory and constitutional rights of accident victims
- Whether the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund has been properly distributed under Section 164-B to further the benefit of accident victims?
- What steps ought to be taken in order to remedy the situation with reference to the inadequacies in the existing compensation schemes for hit-and-run offences?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 162 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988: Provides establishment of a scheme for cashless treatment during the golden hour.
- Section 164-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Establishes the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund to provide financial collection for compulsory insurance, treatment of accident victims, and compensation in hit-and-run cases.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for the right to life that embraces not only death but also timely and adequate medical care.
ARGUMENTS
Arguments of the Appellant:
The Petitioner averred that the failure of the Central Government to operationalize Section 162 has led to denying essential medical treatment in the golden hour and a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of accident victims. He described how various procedural delays and financial constraints usually hinder most hospitals from taking immediate care of a patient, thus emphasizing the necessity of cashless treatment schemes.
The Petitioner also said that the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund under Section 164-B was hardly utilized. He disapproved of the draft concept note fine-tuned by the Central Government, mentioning that it had recommended a grossly inadequate financial commitment and treatment periods which according to him disregarded the intention of saving lives.
Arguments by the Respondent:
The Union of India was in the process of finishing up the proposed scheme of cashless treatment. It stressed that the draft concept note involved logistical and financial considerations to maintain a balance for the future of the scheme. The respondents also brought out the establishment of the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund and the Central Motor Vehicles (Motor Vehicle Accident Fund) Rules, 2022, which laid a proper foundation for operationalizing the provisions of Sections 162 and 164-B.
In terms of hit-and-run instances, respondents stated that there were ongoing efforts to streamline the compensation system through the use of digital portals and simplify the paperwork procedure.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court affirmed the fundamental importance of Section 162, noting that it might protect the right to life by ensuring that individuals involved in traffic accidents received timely medical care.
It condemned the delay of the Central Government in elaborating on the cashless treatment scheme, stating that over two years had scourged by since the provision had come into existence. Above all, the court hinted that if the scheme had come into effect earlier, many more lives could have been saved.
The court mentioned also the shortcomings of the preliminary concept note, namely the proposed cap of Rs. 1,50,000 on treatment and the seven-day limit for any medical care. It observed that these restrictions did not quite suit the purpose of the Scheme of providing full-blown and immediate assistance to the accident victims.
Moreover, it reviewed the performance of the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, mentioning that while the processing of hit-and-run claims had gained momentum, it had singled out the GIC that, although long behind, could still do something about documentation flaws and further expedite the resolution of pending claims.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to finalize, within Section 162, the scheme for cashless treatment by March 14, 2025. This would entail the court receiving the finalized scheme and an accompanying affidavit specifying how it was to be implemented by March 21, 2025. The court stated no further extensions would be entertained.
The court also ordered the GIC to speed up the completion of a digital portal that would help the process of claims more manageable and provide for better communication among claimants and authorities, giving GIC until March 14, 2025, to comply.
CONCLUSION
The ruling emphasizes the court’s dedication to protecting the right to life and tackling structural barriers that prevent accident victims from receiving urgent medical attention. The necessity of accountability and efficiency during public health emergencies was underlined, along with the operationalization of law measures and specific implementation steps. The ruling is an important step toward guaranteeing that the most vulnerable people benefit from the legislative goal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SAGORIKA MUKHERJEE
