Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1069 (GUJ)

Gobarbhai Mahadevbhai Thesia v. State of Gujarat

2014-10-08

R.P.DHOLARIA, V.M.SAHAI

body2014
JUDGMENT : V.M. Sahai, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief: "(a) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents concerned to evolve a scheme/strategy/policy to implement the scheme of taking compulsory insurance for the vehicles being registered with R.T.O. and also to appoint a monitoring agency to ensure that the renewal of policies are made by the concerned vehicles owners on the dates of its renewal with the Insurance Company and be further pleased to direct the respondents to take strictest action against those defaulters who neglect or fail to take insurance or renew insurance of their respective vehicles and also issue a direction for initiating appropriate criminal proceedings against such defaulters, in the larger public interest; (a-1) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the State Government to pay the amount of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the claimants of the claim cases and claimants in execution applications; pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals situated in the State of Gujarat where there is no third-party insurance of the vehicles involved in the accident as per the chart provided by the respondent No. 5. At the same time, give the liberty to the State Government to recover such amount from the owner of such vehicles. (b) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents concerned to maintain registers for the insurance of the vehicle entering from the out-State and officer in-charge of the border check-post may be authorized to stop uninsured vehicles of the out-State from entering. (c) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents concerned to float compulsory life-time accident policy for Motor Vehicles and collect insurance premiums for life-time in case of motor vehicles. (d) This Hon'ble Court may also issue appropriate and suitable instructions which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court; (e) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to fix the responsibility of the State Government to ensure that proper compensation is paid to the victims by the State Government from their own funds, in the event if the State machinery is unable to discharge its statutory duty; (f) Such other and further relief/s which may be deemed just and necessary in the facts of the case may be granted." We have heard Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Government Pleader assisted by Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. Mehul S. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 21 - all Insurance Companies. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation has urged that there should be provisions for taking life-time third-party insurance policy at the time of purchase of the vehicle itself and further the State machinery should ensure that each citizen of the State gets his vehicle with at least third-party insured. 3. This question also came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the problems of those accident victims, who could not get compensation as the vehicle from which they suffered accident, was not insured at all. The Court also considered the scope of Secs. 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Para 10 of the judgment and thereafter issued directions to the Director General of Police and Claims Tribunal of each State. The said directions have been given in Paras 8 to 14 of the judgment. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given suggestions to the Insurance Companies as well as to the legislature with an emphasis to ensure that all accident victims may get compensation for which it is necessary to formulate a comprehensive scheme for payment of compensation to the road accident victims. The Central Government in Para 27 of the judgment was directed to correct the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the appropriate Governments were requested in Para 28 to consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that no such rule has been framed by the State of Gujarat. The direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court is required to be complied with by the State Government so that accident victims may get adequate compensation even in those cases where the vehicles are not insured. 5. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that no such rule has been framed by the State of Gujarat. The direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court is required to be complied with by the State Government so that accident victims may get adequate compensation even in those cases where the vehicles are not insured. 5. However, so far as the prayer made by the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No. 4 herein - Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority be directed to frame a policy for the accident victims who met with an accident and could not get any compensation because the vehicles from which they suffered accident were not insured, in such a manner that those victims may get compensation or in the alternative, the State or Central Legislature be directed to frame such policy in the larger interest of accident victims is concerned, we are of the view that the prayer though effective cannot be granted for the simple reason that this Court exercising powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the legislature to frame a particular policy. The Court can only make recommendations to the State or the Central Legislature, but it is the wisdom of the legislature to decide whether to frame the policy or not. Therefore, the direction as sought to be issued to the State as well as Central Legislature to frame a policy or to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority - respondent No. 4 herein to take a policy decision that all vehicles should be insured third-party for life-time, cannot be issued by this Court. However, it is open to the legislature to direct the respondent No. 4 herein - Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to frame a policy in the larger interest of accident victims, who met with an accident where the vehicle is not insured. 6. Mr. Sheth, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India, reported in 2002 (2) SCC 333 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 97, which is abstracted below: "Judicial interference by way of P.I.L. is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of Constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform, the Court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject-matter of P.I.L. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of Constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its Constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in this present case." 7. It is true that judicial interference in P.I.L. can be made if there is dereliction of Constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the Government. However, this principle would not apply where the Hon'ble Apex Court has already issued directions in the case of Jai Prakash, [ 2010 (2) SCC 607 ]. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the very next Paragraph has clearly stated that in case of policy-decision the Court may not interfere as it is for the experts to frame a policy. 8. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 21 has pointed out that the case of Jai Prakash, [ 2010 (2) SCC 607 ] has not been finally decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the order passed in the case of Jai Prakash, [ 2010 (2) SCC 607 ] is still sub-judice before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore, we cannot issue any direction as prayed for by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at this stage. 9. The aforesaid observation has been made by us in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash, [ 2010 (2) SCC 607 ] in which the directions have already been issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, no further direction is required to be issued. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.