Motor accident claims administration tightened with timeline enforcement, CTO coordination, and further review of fund disbursement mechanics.

Stakeholders in motor accident claim administration were directed to strictly follow the Court's timelines, with repeated default liable to exemplary costs, and the learned ASG was asked to identify non-responsive parties for possible cost consequences. A Chief Technical Officer was approved for appointment by the GIC on behalf of all insurance companies to coordinate the common mobile application mechanism. Issues concerning a proposed fund for uninsured State vehicles and the revised mode of compensation disbursement, including direct transfer methods and account handling, were left for further report and reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the stakeholders in motor accident claim matters must adhere to the time schedule fixed by the Court and face costs for repeated delay; (ii) whether a Chief Technical Officer should be appointed for coordinated implementation of the insurance-company mobile application mechanism; (iii) whether the proposed fund arrangement for uninsured State vehicles and the mode of disbursement of compensation require further examination and rule-based adjustment.

Issue (i): Whether the stakeholders in motor accident claim matters must adhere to the time schedule fixed by the Court and face costs for repeated delay.

Analysis: The order records continued delay in filing reports and stresses that the Court is expending judicial time to streamline motor accident compensation administration. It warns that if time schedules are not followed, those responsible will be visited with exemplary costs. It also directs the learned ASG to identify parties who do not respond in time so that costs may be imposed.

Conclusion: The stakeholders were directed to strictly comply with the timelines, and the Court indicated that future default may attract exemplary costs.

Issue (ii): Whether a Chief Technical Officer should be appointed for coordinated implementation of the insurance-company mobile application mechanism.

Analysis: The Court considered the status of the common mobile application and the need for coordination among the insurance sector, the NIC, and the learned ASG. On the assurance that the task was substantially advanced, the Court accepted the proposal that a Chief Technical Officer be appointed by the GIC on behalf of all insurance companies within a short period.

Conclusion: A Chief Technical Officer was directed to be appointed by the GIC for all insurance companies.

Issue (iii): Whether the proposed fund arrangement for uninsured State vehicles and the mode of disbursement of compensation require further examination and rule-based adjustment.

Analysis: The Court noted the objection that a separate fund may duplicate the accident relief fund contemplated under Section 146(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 151 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It also recorded suggestions regarding direct disbursement, NEFT or RTGS transfers, and the handling of savings or current accounts for award amounts. The Court treated these as matters requiring further report and reconsideration by the learned ASG.

Conclusion: The fund-related question and the revised disbursement methodology were left for further consideration and future directions.

Final Conclusion: The order primarily issued administrative and compliance directions for improving the motor accident claims disbursement framework, while keeping the fund-related issue and related implementation aspects open for further consideration.

---