Judgment :- 1. Though India has got lesser number of vehicles as compared to United States of America, more road accidents are occurring. Whereas, in United State of America, lesser number of road accidents are occurring. The following details would show that the number of accidents from 2002 to 2013. Number of road accidents and number of persons involved in India from 2002 to 2013 Year Number of accidents Number of persons Accident severity Total Fatal Killed Injured 2002 40,7487 73,650 (18.1) 84,674 4,08,711 20.8 2003 406726 73,589 (18.1) 85,998 4,35,122 21.1 2004 429910 79,357 (18.5) 92,618 4,64,521 21.5 2005 439255 83,491 (19.0) 94,968 4,65,282 21.6 2006 460920 93,917 (20.4) 1,05,749 4,96,481 22.9 2007 479216 1,01,161(21.1) 1,14,444 5,13,340 23.9 2008 484704 1,06,591(22.0) 1,19,860 5,23,193 24.7 2009 486384 1,10,993(22.8) 1,25,660 5,15,458 25.8 2010 499628 1,19,558(23.9) 1,34,513 5,27,512 26.9 2011 (p) 497686 1,21,618(24.4) 1,42,485 5,11,394 28.6 2012 490383 1,23,093(25.1) 1,38,258 5,09,667 28.2 2013 486476 1,22,589(25.1) 1,37,592 4,94,893 28.3 2. It is seen from the above, every year the number of accidents is going up as more number of vehicles are added to the traffic in India. In view of the above position, it should be everybody's endeavor to prevent accidents and ply vehicles on the road with relevant insurance coverage and to see that the accident claim awards are paid in time easily as per Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 without any problem to the victims of the road accidents. This case is an example which would go to show that act policy was not in force when the accident occurred. 3. One Jagan @ Jagadeesan, the 1st respondent sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 30.01.2012, when the Tanker lorry, insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the appellant herein, driven rashly and negligently, hit from behind, while he was riding his motorcycle from Ponneri to Thatchur Koot Road Redhills road and therefore, the claim petition for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ponneri. 4. The Tribunal, on contest, found that the lorry was driven rashly and negligently resulting in the accident. The 1st respondent sustained fracture in the right leg, fracture in right thigh, Grade II B compound fracture of both bone of right leg and wound debridement and external fixation were done. He was hospitalised for 17 days. In view of that, P.W.2, Doctor assessed the disability at 65%. The 1st respondent sustained fracture in the right leg, fracture in right thigh, Grade II B compound fracture of both bone of right leg and wound debridement and external fixation were done. He was hospitalised for 17 days. In view of that, P.W.2, Doctor assessed the disability at 65%. However, the Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries, fixed the disability at 45% and awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,500/-. The said award is being challenged before this Court by the Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no insurance coverage for the offending vehicle, namely, Tanker Lorry. The insurance coverage expired on 17.11.2011 whereas the accident occurred on 30.01.2012 and therefore, liability should not have been fastened on the Insurance Company. 6. The above facts would only show that the Act policy as per Section 147 in Chapter XI of Motor Vehicles Act was not in force when the accident occurred. It is said that duration of Act policy is one year only and after the expiry of one year, the owners have to renew the policy. However, it is seen, from a number of cases dealt with, by this Court, that many vehicles involved in accidents do not possess valid insurance coverage, fitness certificate and so on. As per Section 146 of the Act, no person shall use the vehicle in public place without insurance policy coverage. Like life-time road tax for vehicles, the owners should be made to pay the insurance coverage mandatorily for life-time, in respect of their vehicles, so that these kinds of disputes can be avoided. If the duration of the Act policy is only for one year and it has to be renewed every year, such problems are bound to occur, as the owners are not promptly renewing the coverage. It is mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, all the vehicles should have Act policy coverage to safeguard the interest of third parties. Even if policy expires, most of owners of vehicles do not renew it promptly and there is no mechanism available either with the Motor Vehicles Authorities or Police to verify whether Act Policies are renewed by payment of premiums and in the event of default in payment, to enable them to seize the vehicles. Even if policy expires, most of owners of vehicles do not renew it promptly and there is no mechanism available either with the Motor Vehicles Authorities or Police to verify whether Act Policies are renewed by payment of premiums and in the event of default in payment, to enable them to seize the vehicles. In the absence of any mechanism to verify the existence of the policy, it is appropriate to make the owners to pay the amount for life-time insurance coverage, in the interest of general public. When the owners purchase the vehicles investing lakhs of rupees, there should not be an problem for them to pay a few more thousands as life time Act insurance policy premium. 7. To ascertain the feasibility of the above said aspect, namely, payment of life-time insurance coverage for vehicles, it is appropriate to, suo motu, implead The Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, Hyderabad as the third respondent in the above appeal. Mr.M.B. Gopalan, learned counsel takes notice for the newly impleaded third respondent and undertakes to get instructions with regard to the mandatory Act policy insurance coverage for life-time of the vehicles, as has been done by the authorities for life-time payment of tax of the vehicles. Further, the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, the newly impleaded 3rd respondent, shall also consider the possibility of issuing directions to all the Insurance Companies to provide information to the Motor Vehicle Authority concerned and the Police, about vehicles, whose insurance coverage policy had expired, soon after the date of expiry, so that the authorities can check and verify the renewal of the policy and seize them, if not renewed, as it is mandatory that, in the absence of insurance policy, vehicles cannot ply on the road. 8. Besides, since the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Insurance Act require to be amended, in this regard, this Court, suo motu, impleads Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi and Union of India, represented by this Secretary, Ministry of Road and Surface Transport, New Delhi, as 4th and 5th respondents State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Transport Department Fort St.George, Chennai and Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai as 6th and 7th respondent in the above appeal. by its Secretary Transport Department Fort St.George, Chennai and Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai as 6th and 7th respondent in the above appeal. Mr.G. Rajagopal, learned additional Solicitor General takes notice for the newly impleaded 4th and 5th respondents and Mrs.Kavita learned Government Advocates takes notice on behalf of 6th & 7th respondents and undertakes to get instructions. 9. The newly impleaded respondents are required to give their response with regard to the following queries: (a) How many vehicles are registered in India? (b) How many vehicles have not renewed Act policy? (c) Is it a fact that almost one third vehicles do not have subsisting mandatory act policies? (d) Is there any mechanism available to check and verify whether premium of the act policies are paid promptly? (e) In the event of default in payment, whether the insurance companies are informing the motor vehicles authorities or police authorities as per Section 14 of Motor Vehicles Act? (f) Whether vehicles without renewal of act policy are seized regularly and promptly? (g) Why not insurance regulatory authority issue directions to all the insurance companies to provide information to the motor vehicles authorities concerned, and the police authorities about the vehicles whose insurance coverage policy have expired so that the authorities can verify the renewal of the policy and seize the vehicles, if not renewed? (h) Why not the Central Government and IRDA make mandatory act policy insurance coverage for life time of the vehicle as has been done by the authorities for life time payment of tax to the vehicles? (i) Why not the Union Government in the interest of public, amend the Insurance Act as well as Motor Vehicles Act, to make mandatory, Act policy insurance coverage for life time of vehicles so as to avoid exoneration of insurance companies from payment of motor accident claims to the victims of road accidents, in case of non renewal of act policy? (j) What are all other measures which are required to be taken to make fool proof insurance coverage of every vehicle? Respondents are to file their response by 4.3.2015. 10. (j) What are all other measures which are required to be taken to make fool proof insurance coverage of every vehicle? Respondents are to file their response by 4.3.2015. 10. There shall be an order of interim stay on condition that the appellant Insurance Company deposits the entire award amount, together with accrued interest and costs, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 180 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Ponneri. In the event of failure on the part of the appellant in depositing the said amount within the stipulated time, the interim stay granted shall stand automatically vacated without any further reference to this Court. 11. Notice to respondents 1 and 2 returnable by 4.3.2015. Private notice is also permitted. 12. Post on 4.3.2015.